Babes-Bolyai Universität Cluj-Napoca Romania

Department of Sociology and Social Work

EUROPEAN MASTER OF CHILDREN’S RIGHTS
Freie Universität Berlin
Department of Education and Social Services
M.A. CHILDHOOD STUDIES AND CHILDREN’S RIGHTS

MA PAPER
WORK IN CHILDREN’S DAILY LIVES

MA Student: Smaranda Liana Cioban, Zalău, Brândușelor, no 15, Sălaj, Romania,

650011;e-mail: smaranda.cioban@gmail.com; Matrikel No: 5040894

Coord. Teachers: Prof. Univ. Dr. Maria Roth; Babeș-Bolyai University;

Department of Sociology and Social Work; EUROPEAN MASTER OF CHILDREN’S
RIGHTS

Dr. Urszula Markowska Manista; Freie Universität Berlin;

Department of Education and Psychology, M.A. CHILDHOOD STUDIES AND
CHILDREN’S RIGHTS

2017
 Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3

1. Work free childhood perspectives .............................................................................................. 5

Labour market discourse ................................................................................................................ 6

Human capital discourse ................................................................................................................. 7

Child- centered discourse ............................................................................................................... 7

Social responsibility discourse ........................................................................................................ 8

2. Socio-cultural perspectives of work ............................................................................................ 9

3. The political economy of work.................................................................................................. 11

Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 12

Theoretical framework: schools of thought in children‟s rights ........................................................... 13

1. Paternalism ............................................................................................................................... 14

2. The liberation perspective ........................................................................................................ 15

3. The welfare perspective............................................................................................................ 16

4. The emancipation view ............................................................................................................. 17

Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 18

Children‟s work in Romania ................................................................................................................. 19

1. ILO Statistical data: children in employment worldwide .......................................................... 19

2. Statistics: Children engaged into economic activities in Romania ........................................... 20

“Worst forms of child labour in Romania”.................................................................................... 22

Possible explanations why children decide to work ..................................................................... 24

Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 27

Legal approaches to children‟s work in Romania ................................................................................. 28

Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 35

Research: How children perceive their work ........................................................................................ 36

Research methodology ..................................................................................................................... 36

1|Page
 Choosing the sample for the research .......................................................................................... 37

The objectives of the research ...................................................................................................... 39

Research methods ........................................................................................................................ 40

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 68

Limitations..................................................................................................................................... 70

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 72

2|Page
Abstract

The research deals with paid and unpaid working activities realized by children. It states that because
of the prohibitive labour legislation, children engaged into economic activities from Romania lack
visibility and lack protection. From a children‟s rights perpective, granting children the right to
participation which is stipulated in the Children‟s Rights Convention and taking children‟s views
seriously will provide a better protection for children against marginalization and exploitation. The
paper presents the engagement of children in economic activities in Romania from multiple points of
view, including academic literature, legislative provisions, statistical data, and social involvement.
The study ends with an exploratory research about the attitude that children have about work in
general and about the working activities that they perform. The research employed a combined
method of analysis which included half-structured interview and questionnaire. The collected data
was coded and analyzed through the aid of QSR NVIVO 11 Program.

Introduction

Work in children‟s daily lives constitutes an exploratory study based on childhood studies
paradigm. The research analysis children‟s attitude regarding work in general and concerning
the working activities they do, stating that there is a discrepancy between the meaning
attached to work and children‟s perceptions about the tasks they perform. The paper is
organized in five main chapters.

The first chapter presents the main theories about the place of work in children‟s lives as
classified by Ennew, namely: work free childhood perspectives, socio-cultural perspectives of
work, the political economy of work. While work free childhood perspectives claim that
work should not be present in children‟s lives, as it represents a characteristic of an
“abnormal” childhood, the socio-cultural perspectives come to contradict its assumptions,
stating that work has both harms and benefits. At the same time, Ennew shows that children‟s
decision to work is influenced by political and economic factors, such as war or famine and
children that face these situations will engage into work earlier.

The second chapter continues with conceptualizing child work from the point view of
children‟s rights scholars. Holding that a child is every person under 18, this chapter operates
on childhood and the main rights established by the Convention of Children‟s Rights (1989).
As the chapter shows, the differences between these theories are determined by the way they
define the concept of best interest of the child.

The third chapter offers an image about the statistics concerning the number of children
economically engaged worldwide and in Romania. While the data from ILO strikes as
accurate, the Romanian statistics lack consistency, as the main sets of official data on the
field are radically different, fact that leads to a lack of representation in the official version of
the children that are engaged involved into economic activities.

3|Page
While the third chapter ends with providing some possible explanations why children decide
to engage into work, the fourth unfolds that the children that are realizing economic activities
are invisible in the Romanian Labour Law. Romanian legislation in the work field states only
that it is illegal for children out of 15 to be employed. The only law that relates to the children
that realize different working tasks is Law 272/2004, which has provisions against any type
of exploitation, including children‟s exploitation through work. The lack of legislative acts
that relate to children that are engaged in economic activities was internationally criticized.
As it ratified ILO Conventions, Romania has the obligation to harmonise its legislation in
accordance to them.

The last chapter represents an exploratory research about work in children‟s daily lives that
investigates the meanings that children attach to work in general and particularly to their
work. The research follows the main premises of socio-cultural theory of Bourdillon and of
the emancipation theory which operates on the distinction between children as beings and
becomings. Thus, the research perceives children as equal to adults and competent to take
decisions that concern them (unless they are proven as incompetent in a specific field- being
influenced by other factors). Acknowledging children as sujects of rights, the research
combines mixed methods of analysis. It employs a half-structured interview, meant to
qualitatively present data about work in children‟s lives and their attitudes towards it and a
questionnaire which was based on the same structure of the interview and aimed to identify
how much children‟s answers from the interviews were influenced by researcher‟s bias. The
interview was applied to 7 children of 12 and 13- 6 from rural area and one from urban area
and the survey was applied to 31 children from both rural and urban areas that are enrolled in
a highschool from Zalau. The data was coded and analysed through the aid of QSR NVIVO
11 Program.

The research answered two main research questions, namely “how children perceive work in
relation to childhood” and “do children perceive normal that a child should work”. In
addition, the research emphasizes that children tend to perceive their work less significant
than the work their parents do and less significant than work in general. The paper pleads that
paid and unpaid children‟s work should be more valued by society and it should be
distinguished between necessity and obligation. Furthermore children‟s voice needs to heard,
while at the same time researchers should evaluate the factors that influence children‟s
attitudes.

4|Page
Theoretical approaches of work in children’s lives

Starting from the perspective that children are competent actors who have the right to
participate in decisions that concern them, the present paper explores how empowering
children to participate as active economic agents in society may reduce their vulnerability.
Empowering children to participate as active economic agents relates to valuing both the paid
and unpaid work they realize, providing them with decent conditions at the workplace and
involving children that are working in drafting policies about international labour law (as
applied to children). The mainstream approach unfolds that children should not work, as there
is a historical trauma concerning working circumstances. It is problematic while dealing with
realities of children around the world. Because of specific circumstances that children and
their families have to face with, “freeing children from their workplaces” proves to let
children more vulnerable to exploitation (see Bonnet, 1998; International Group on Child
Labour, 1997).

There can be identified three major points of interest on the topic of working
children. The first point deals which aspects related to the way in which childhood
and its relation to work is perceived by various scholars. These hypotheses are
mirrored in the classification of Judith Ennew, elaborated in 2005. Starting from the
status of childhood in the international law, particularly by the conclusions of the
2004 State of the World’s Children report, the famous British activist and researcher
of children rights identifies four distinct views regarding the image of working
children, namely the labour market, the human capital, the social responsibility and
the child-centered discourses. The second one has its origin in the historical studies
of Phillippe Ariés and centres upon the mental construction of childhood imagery. In
this case, it should be mentioned the research of Michael Bourdillon, which highlights
the socio-cultural dimension of child work. Finally, there are Cindi Katz, Tatek Abebe
and Craig Jeffery, who discuss the political economy of infantile employment.

1. Work free childhood perspectives

Mainstream approach posits child labour as negative –“it not only robs children of their
childhoods and futures, but it entraps whole populations, regions and nations in cycles of
poverty and underdevelopment” (Hindman, 2009, Introduction). The concept of a work-
free childhood has shaped international policy since the foundation of UNICEF (

5|Page
1946) and expanded during the 1990s, as a consequence of the international agencies
and NGOs‟ humanitarian campaigns, which led to the first UNICEF report concerning
the issue of working children ( 1997). However, there is not a single voice towards its
definition.

As Ennew indicates (2005), there is a heated debate between the theorists who
perceive work as being a significant and meaningful part in children‟s lives, on the one
hand, and those who consider schooling and play as representative for childhood, whilst
work is appropriate only as unpaid or “ for helping out”, on the other. The discussion is
nurtured by the contradictions related to the perception of childhood‟s features in the
academic media. Hence, the depiction of work-free childhood as a universal norm is
rejected by the post-modern attitude towards social imagery, which considers abolition
movements and trends as reminiscences of an idealist vision concerning the Western
civilization. The main criticism regarding world’s children complex has its core in
the ambiguity of several national educational programmes and anti-child-working
legislation, which take into consideration geographical, cultural or gendered distinctions
rather than individual needs or aspirations.

Labour market discourse

The “labor market” discourse claims that work should be adult-oriented, because this activity
contradicts the image of a happy childhood. By presenting children employed into economic
activities as victims of exploitation, theorists sustain that children must be kept away from
adult responsibilities and establish their aim towards removing children from labour markets.
According to this view, the abolition of child labour should be done by states through drafting
legislation such as minimum age laws, compulsory education and through criminalizing
children‟s engagement into economic activities. (Ennew, Myers and Plateau, 2005: 28-29)

Its main argument represents the macroeconomic perspective, in which child labour is
associated with underdevelopment and the market is a source of uncertainty, lack of
security, illness or anti-social habits. The labour-market promoters‟ premises are based on
a historical analysis of working conditions, which reflects that the lack of age separation is a
sign of hostile environment (abrupt landscape, extreme weather, tribal organization and
absence of technology) and encourages a radicalization of generation gap, through the
action of Oedipus‟ complex. So, children are perceived as vulnerable elements, who

6|Page
cannot act in an independent way, due to their psychological and biological features.
In order to reach their full potential, they must be placed under an adult control,
particularly a parental one, whose duty is to provide a sense of mental order. In this
way, the 1997 UNICEF report sustains that “a proper childhood” takes place when
children have “a care-receiving, safe, secure and happy existence and be raised by
caring and responsible adults”. (Apud Abebe& Bessel in op cit: 767)

Human capital discourse

The human capital approach, which is usually present in national economic agencies and
education systems, accept work only in the form of apprenticeships and skill training. The
paid work is described as incompatible with school. As the school‟s main task is to prepare
children to become economic actors in the future, it depicts knowledge as a payment and
replaces money with school marks: “children are viewed as human potential that must be
prepared for productive adulthood, and childhood as a period of economic investment that
produces future returns through taxes paid, increased productivity, and an expanded
economy” (Ennew, 2005: 29).

More nuanced approaches focus on the difficulties on the path of abolition. Poverty-
reduction strategies are critical to the effort, schooling must be made both accessible and
must have an adequate quality, and efforts need to be prioritized to those children in greatest
needs. Abolition is described as an ultimate goal. They observe a difference between child
work and child labour: “Some consider most work of children, especially very young
children as at least potentially harmful. Others see most work as, on balance, benign or
beneficial, especially if it enables families to meet essential needs, and even if the work is
performed under difficult circumstances. A number of authors articulated or relied on
operational definitions derived from ILO Conventions No. 138 (on minimum age) and No.
182 (on worst forms of child labor), or derived from national laws and customs”(Hindman,
2009: Introduction). The latter is defined as “work and/or working conditions that undermine
development of the health status, knowledge and skills that children require to contribute in
adult life to both national economic development and their own prosperity” (ibidem).

Child- centered discourse

7|Page
The promoters of this direction react against the normative aspect of the abolitionist
campaigns by emphasizing that it is very difficult to draw the line between the harmful and
the non-harmful. The major object of criticism is represented by the human capital approach,
which is described as an artificial construction, with no correspondence in real life.
According to Manfred Liebel, the separation between school and paid work does not take into
consideration children‟s points of view. Although the German scholar maintains the
conventional opinion that all children, including working children, should have access to
schooling and skill training, he puts into question the so-called hostility of economic market
by putting it in opposition with the way in which street children themselves describe the
relationship between work and education.

The major limit of this perspective consists on the fact that it emphasizes children‟s
vulnerability to exploitation. As Liebel argues, “permitting children to perform only unpaid
or lowly paid work does not only mean preventing them from earning money, but also may
serve to veil or legitimize less visible forms of exploitation of children”. (Liebel, 2013: 17)
Nevertheless, it regards children as active agents who are involved into decisions which lead
to a better protection of their rights. Valuing children‟s own initiatives and active
participation in implementing activities that concern them are main steps forward in order to
better conceptualize the notion of children rights.

For avoiding misinterpretation, Liebel enounce three main principles. Firstly, before
analyzing the employment into any action affecting children and their families, it should be
assessed if the target group has benefits. Secondly, it is necessary to ensure that children and
their parents are involved in the process of decision making. Thirdly, the interventions
targeted against the exploitation of children should empower the affected children and
strengthen their capacities to resist. (See Manfred Liebel, n.d.:17)

Social responsibility discourse

The last approach from Ennew‟s classification holds that children have the right to be
protected from exploitative labour (UNICEF, International Save the Children Alliance, 1999
ILO Convention No. 182, Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Elimination of the
Worst Forms of Child Labour, the 1998 ILO Declaration of Fundamental Principles and
Rights in Work, the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child). It explores the effects that
work has on children development and sets the conditions under which children should work

8|Page
and draws clear lines between paid and unpaid work, arguing that only unpaid work, work in
family enterprises and work for pocket money are appropriate for children. Paid work and
employment are seen as harmful for children, being regarded as “sufferings of an abnormal
childhood” (Abebe & Bessell, 2011: 769).

The topic of social responsibility establishes interdependence between child labour and
exclusion. It depicts children well-being as mostly linked to “the care and moral values of
society” (Ennew, Myers& Plateau: 30) and child labour as a consequence of “social
breakdown of family, community, or nation so that support does not reach marginalized
groups of children”. So, children are exploited through work because they are socially
excluded. According to this perspective, there are many things worse than premature labor
that can happen to children – war, disease, orphanhood, crushing poverty. Hence, children
need to regain access to mechanisms of social protection, participation and opportunity in
order to be included in society rather than isolation from adult world: “As long as children‟s
economic contributions remain essential for family and child survival, rather than seeking to
abolish child labor, we should support children and enable them to find decent work.
Universal truths that cannot be ignored: child labor is a highly localized phenomenon –
located in specific places and at specific times, and conditioned and shaped by local
circumstances. There are numerous patterns and commonalities that can be observed to
operate across space and time and not just on the big issues, such as the relationship between
the poverty and child labor, or that schooling is the great bulwark against child labor, because
there are numerous exceptions to those patterns, but also on many other issues, such as
commonalities in the types of work children perform across the globe and across time;
commonalities in factors that increase vulnerability to child labor, such a orphanhood,
minority status, land tenancy arrangements, and migration patterns; commonalities in the
types of production processes, employment relationships, and payment systems operating
where large numbers of children are found working; and commonalities across time and
space in the kinds of initiatives that can be successful or unsuccessful, in finally coming to
grips with child labor.“(White, 2009:11) The strengthening and mobilization of civil society,
together with empowering children to participate themselves in finding solutions for the problems
they face are significant in reducing child labour.

2. Socio-cultural perspectives of work

9|Page
While work free childhood perspectives (Mendelievich, 1979; Sharon Stephens, 1995;
International Labour Law, UNICEF, Panter-Brick & Smith , 2000; etc) entail that “childhood
is a time for children to be in school or at play…precious time in which children should live
free from fear, safe from violence and protected from abuse and exploitation” (Apud
UNICEF, State of World‟s Children Report in Abebe & Bessell, 2011: 767), the socio-
cultural perspectives of work value children work, stating that it is “ an integral part of
everyday life and indispensable to family livelihoods ”(ibidem: 770), having its own meaning
in accordance to the socio-cultural context (Bourdillon; Nieuwenhuys; Ali Mazrui).

Childhood studies were dominated by the idea that childhood is a “natural” rather than a
“social” phenomenon; that growing up is a natural and inevitable process characterized by
distinct, age-based stages in the development of cognitive and physical competences. As a
response, the adepts of cultural determinism state that the notion of child is blurry in the real
life. Children are not a homogenous group, although they share some features such as
dependency on others for survival in their early years, gradual development of capacities that
decrease their dependency, lack of full legal standing; and some degree of age-based
discrimination. In this way, Philippe Ariés proposes an association with childhood and
the modern age by stating that before the Renaissance movement all the artistic
representations depicted only adults (1962), while Barbara Rogoff concludes that “both the
sequence and the timing of development of specific competencies are only dependent on
cultural context” (apud Rogoff in White,2014:11) These thinkers serve as a source of
inspiration for Bourdillon, who argues that the notions that assume spatial divisions between
work and schooling do not apply for all children around the world. The demarcation
boundaries are not as straightforward as they may seem at first sight. Rather, work may be
beneficial for children in particular situations, sometimes even providing them with the
opportunity to purchase the necessary items for schooling (Bourdillon, 2011: 98-105) and is
very important in developing competences.

The education acquired through work, also called as “learning by doing”, has its roots in
Vygotsky theory regarding the way children acquire and deploy cultural knowledge through
imitation. (See Nielsen, Mushin, Tomaselli & Whiten, 2014: 2169-2184). Bourdillon goes
even further, discussing how situations when work is detrimental to children can be
addressed. Although not recognized by public policies, learning through work plays an
essential role in children development, especially in the situations when the competencies
10 | P a g e
developed through schooling may seem ineffective in preparing children for their future role
in community, schooling is not accessible or does not answer children‟s needs. In this
respect, he argues that improving conditions of work and the context in which children work
are particularly relevant. (ibidem: 105) If children‟s work is only superficially analyzed, it
may end in devaluing children‟s work through which they managed to overcome a difficult
situation, both from the point of view of economics and individual livelihood: “Do you know
how you insult me, when you talk of „combatting‟ and „abolishing‟ the work that I do? I have
worked as a domestic servant since I was eight. Because of doing this work, I have been able
to go to school (which my parents in the village could not afford); I help my parents with the
money I earn. I am very proud of the work I do.” (Apud a testimony from a 13-year-old girl
from Senegal as recalled in translation by Ben White and Bill Myers in Bourdillon,
2011:107). Under these circumstances, the sociologist asserts that along to considering the
nature of work and its appropriateness for the age and development, one has to explore the
relationship developed at the workplace and the meaning that children assess to work in their
lives. Therefore, empowering children to speak about their work and taking their views
seriously provides a more comprehensive framework in tackling situations when a particular
type of work is more harmful than beneficial for a child and in reducing the risk of
exploitation. Children consider a matter of pride to have been allocated one‟s own
agricultural plot or livestock and in difficult circumstances such as conflict, displacement, or
abject familial poverty, access to an independent source of income or subsistence may be
more attractive than rescue, protection, or placement in foster care. The prospect of gaining
some control over their own lives in contexts where the world of adults has failed to protect
or provision them can be an act of self-affirmation and self-confidence.

3. The political economy of work

The context in which children work is also influenced by political and economic factors.
Thus, macroeconomic and political changes transform children‟s lives, determining
“disruptions in the culture, knowledge and skill acquisition that binds processes of production
and reproduction”. (Apud Katz in Abebe& Bessel, op cit: 773) These changes include debt,
war, corruption, unfair trade, geopolitics and other factors that impoverish specific countries
and communities. In the interplay between politics and economic interest, children may fall in
the trap of acquiring skills that are not relevant for their future work, fact that shows
discontinuities between learning and future work preparation. (ibidem)

11 | P a g e
The macroeconomic policies imposed by the IMF and the World Bank in response to the
Washington Consensus, which set a 10 economic policy prescriptions in order to create a
reform package for crisis-wracked developing countries, have a devastating impact on
children communities, even in remote areas. Hence, young people suffer the brunt of
marginalization prompted by global capitalism in multiple ways. (ibidem) An illustration of
this exclusion process is provided by Cindi Katz in her book Growing Up Global (2004),
which analyses the transformation of a village from Sudan after its incorporation into a
state-sponsored irrigation system. The author observes a diminishing relation between work
and play, which eventually leads to an acquisition of inappropriate knowledge. During school
time, children learn a lot of theoretical notions which cannot be put into practice, due to the
absence of local resources or local occupations. In this case, it should be mentioned the
situation of the state curricula, which impose the teaching of agricultural skills for children
who have no land to practice them or live in a non-agricultural employment. A similar view
with Katz has Tatek Abebe, who signals the decrease of children work quality as a
consequence of a cash crops production. Likewise, Craig Jeffery‟s depiction of child work in
Northern India shows that the neoliberal economic changes devalued the social trust in
formal education programmes and in this way it facilitates a diminishment of school
attendance (Jeffery, 2009: 182-211).

Overview
The presented theories have a common ground. Thus, all these theories perceived the child in
an evolution process. Consequently, the child is vulnerable and needs to be protected. The
engagement of children into economic activities is linked to their development. Work free
approaches state that childhood is a time of play and school. Understanding childhood as a
time of play and school with work as a characteristic of an abnormal and sad childhood leads
to marginilizing working children and devaluing their work. These researchers see work as an
isolated phenomenon and do not take into account the rights of children and their role in the
family. Similar to work free perspectives, human capital and social responsibility theories
treat children‟s work as marginal. Although they admit some kinds of work may be
beneficial, they keep an opposition between paid work and school. At the same time, only
unpaid work is perceived as beneficial for children‟s development and children that involve
into paid activities are marginalized. Other point that is shared by these theorists is their view
about childhood. Likewise, childhood is perceived as a natural process and children are

12 | P a g e
valued from the perspective of their becoming. It follows that best interest of the child is
linked to what the child will be and does not emphasize the present competences that children
have as social actors. Contrary to these directions, child centered approach advocate
children‟s emancipation, stating that children are competent actors and have to be involved in
the process of decision-making. As a result, this theory relates the topic of whether children‟s
work should be accepted or not within children‟s right to participation. The strengths of this
approach consist in valuing children‟s perspectives, granting children the right of decision-
making, acknowledging children‟s agency and noticing children‟s contribution in the
economy of their families‟. Still, a major critic to this view is that may leave room to children
exploitation. In return, child centered vision explains that analysing the employment and the
benefits of the target group reduce the risk of exploitation.

Summing up, the distinction between paid and unpaid work is socially constructed. Both paid
and unpaid works may lead to children‟s exploitation and exploitation may be prevented by
improving working conditions. As Liebel states (2012), working conditions may be improved
only if children‟s work is recognized. In this sense, Liebel addresses whether children should
have the right to work. The next chapter explores‟ how different theorists conceptualized
children‟s rights and they define “best interest of the child”.

Theoretical framework: schools of thought in children’s rights

There is constant focus on analyzing the significance of work in children lives and the
conditions when work becomes harmful to children well-being and development. Still, the
topic of work in children‟s lives has to be tackled from a diachronic point of view, which
deals with the position of children in society in relation to adults. Starting from the
assumption that children should be granted rights both as human beings and as children, the
following chapter inquires how working children should be granted the right to work as other
workers, while having access to the specific rights that should be guaranteed to all children
according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Children remain involved in many
different forms of work and work relations can vary from complete subordination, whether in
family, bonded labour or wage relations to relative autonomy.

According to the definition employed by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, “a
child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law
13 | P a g e
applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.” (UN Convention on The Rights of the
Child, 1989) The Convention also notes that a main principle that has to be considered with
regard to all actions concerning children is the best interest of the child. Still, the concept of
“best interest of the child” is rather abstract. Theorists frequently ask whether “best interest
of the child” deals with children as “being” or as “becoming”. These concepts originate from
the “difference dilemma”, which questions whether children or those who defend them
should choose equal rights with adults, with the risk that this kind of legislation is
not properly adjusted or whether they should limit to special rights on the basis of
their particularity, with the possible impediment of creating new forms of
discrimination.

Children as “being” focuses on how children are at present and what is beneficial for them at
present; children as “becoming” centers only on how they are treated when they enter into
adulthood, fact that leads to a tendency of disregarding their rights at present. Finding ways
to see children both as “beings” and “becoming” creates pathways towards understanding
both their role in the present and in the future. As Turner and Matthews hold, there is a range
of possibilities between conceptualizing children as “beings” and as “becoming”: “Between
the views that children are what adults are, know what adults know, and deserve exactly what
adults deserve and the view that children are the negation or the opposite of adults in being,
knowledge and desert is an as yet unfathomable range of possibilities that merits exploration
and mapping.” (Apud Turner & Matthews in Liebel, Hanson, Saadi & Vandenhole, 2012:72)

Up to this point, it may be clear that different discourses on children rights were articulated
starting from assumptions related to childhood image, children competence, the kind of rights
children should have and the differences and similarities between children and adults
(Hanson, 2012: 63-79). In this respect, Karl Hanson distinguishes four main discourses
on childhood and children‟s rights, which have a particular significance in relation to the
perception on children‟s work.

1. Paternalism

Firstly, the paternalist view sees children as “becoming “, portraying them as future citizens
who rely on adults in day to day life and are incapable to take rational decisions. Children‟s
work is usually gendered, but in many societies, gender divisions are less strict than among
14 | P a g e
adults. Household chores and care of elderly and sick family members are often assigned to
children, including for children enrolled into schools. While children‟s work contribution in
the family is often perceived as a part of household survival strategy, access to unpaid labour
of women, boys and girls can also be a first step toward expansion and accumulation in
small-scale enterprises, a process known as endo-familial accumulation. (Hindman, 2009)

Due to their social vulnerability, children need to be protected both in relation to themselves
and to adults. They are placed under the subordination of a paternal authority from a legal
point of view represented either by parents, state assistance, professional or voluntary
benefactors who can rely on legal arrangement, institutions and welfare organizations. There
is no difference dilemma, because there is no recognition of child autonomy. The paternalists
have no doubt on the specificity of children‟s rights that ensure their future well-being. In
their opinion, the best interest of the child is decided by caring adults who know what is
beneficial for children. Children should be granted with a special attention and isolated from
the troublesome environment of adult world. They should have restrictions on several
domains which could lead them to anti-social behaviour (including sexuality, economy, law,
politics and social or religious dissent). A position with long historical roots, which generated
the reform movements of 19th and early 20th century, paternalism views children work as a
form of oppression, which needs to be banned in order to protect children‟s integrity. Thus,
its supporters call for urgent legislative measures, on the basis of laissez-faire principle.
Abolitionism is invested with a moral dimension, which is sometimes legitimized by
invoking religious canons. Although it was criticized by the post-war scholarship,
paternalism remains the dominant force in society, being supported by conservative media.
(See Hanson, 2012)

2. The liberation perspective

The liberation perspective, also called as non-paternalism, affirms that children are citizens at
present, having an important role as active actors in their families and communities. They are
competent to take rational decisions in relation to their lives. Like in the paternalist case,
the difference dilemma is an illusion. However, the standard is not specificity, but
equality. Children should not be granted with special rights because this investment can be
used as discrimination. Instead, they should have equal rights with adults and there should be

15 | P a g e
no restrictions on their activity and fields of interest. The best interest of the child relies on
his possibility of participation, which offers the chance of expressing their views and
representing themselves. Consequently, the liberation scholars focus their activity on two
main topics: the implication in politics (the right to vote) and the economic independence (the
right to work). They argue that a future children‟s empowerment prevents the actions of
discrimination and eventually generates an improvement of working conditions.
Liberationists could also invoke a historical tradition, namely the revolutionary trend, which
used the childhood image in order to legitimize their equalitarian views and considered the
recognition of children‟s rights as part of a broader movement for the emancipation of all
mankind. Thus, it should be mentioned the 18th century social primitivism, whose main
supporter was Jean Jacques Rousseau, the 19th century Romanticism, the New Age
spirituality, the psychoanalysis and the students‟ protests of the 1960s (Chaplin, 2017). All
of them serve as a major source of inspiration for the works of Philippe Ariés (1962), who
depict childhood as a reverse of the modern society. Ariés‟ legacy is materialized in the
activism of Richard Farson (1974) and John Holt (1975), whose basic claims are that “the
modern separation of the child‟s and adult‟s worlds is unwarranted and oppressive
discrimination; that this segregation is accompanied and reinforced by a false ideology of
childishness.” (Hanson, 2012:75)

3. The welfare perspective

Welfare perspective is prevalent in the discourse of non-governmental organizations. These

theorists perceive children as incompetent actors unless they prove to be competent. Similar
to paternalism, welfare position still sees children as future citizens. However, the latter
acknowledge the capacity of some children to take rational decisions regarding their lives.
Furthermore, “the burden of proof lies on those who would argue in favour of
recognizing children‟s competence” (ibidem). Apart from protection rights, children are
granted with provision and participation rights, although participation rights are somewhat
limited. This attitude is materialized in UN Convention of the Rights of the Child
(1989) and reflects the UNICEF agenda. The CRC‟s point of view is based on a
gradual rights enlargement, starting from the paternalist claim of children‟s vulnerability
to adults and orienting towards a liberationist aspiration. “Will the child, once he or she
becomes a capable adult, agree with the imposed limitations to its autonomy as a child? We
16 | P a g e
have to treat (children) as persons entitled to equal concern and respect and entitled to have
both their present autonomy recognized and their capacities for their future autonomy
safeguarded. And this is to recognize that children, particularly young children, need nurture,
care and protection “(apud Michael Freeman in ibidem: 77).

Child labour should be abolished, beginning with the worst forms. According to Laura
Purdy (1992), cited by Hanson, “granting children an equal right to work would be unfair
because this would deepen the gap between the rich and the poor” ( ibidem: 76).
Nevertheless, abolition is a long term goal and before achieving it child labour should be
regulated so as not to be so harmful in children‟s lives: “Working children have a right to be
protected by law against exploitation and should be heard when worksites and conditions of
work are examined by inspectors investigating the implementation of labour laws. Children
and, if existing, representatives of working children‟s associations should also be heard when
labour laws are drafted or when the enforcement of laws is considered and evaluated” (
UNCRC, General Comment 12 on the Right of the Child to Be Heard, 2009).

4. The emancipation view

Lastly, the emancipation view comprises the theories that empower children to take rational
decisions related to their lives, while acknowledging the need for legislative provisions to
monitor and regulate the cases when children should have access to special rights in order to
serve the principle of best interest. Children are social actors, contributing to the welfare of
society by being an active part in their households and communities. At the same time,
children are extremely valuable as becoming, in the context of reproducing society.
Considering that the emancipationist vision views children as beings, the supporters of this
perspective point out that children are competent actors capable of deciding for their lives
unless they are proved to be incompetent. It is crucial that children are granted access to the
right to participation on the form of a real participation which allows them to access the other
rights, namely provision and protection. Children should have equal rights to adults on every
matter and special rights based on their value as becoming for society‟s human capital and
should be empowered to work and regulations should improve wages and working conditions
in order to achieve children‟s best interest. They have the following rights: right to be
employed, right to decide whether they want to work or not to work, right to decent

17 | P a g e
conditions at their working place and instrumental work-related rights, such as the right to
associate.

Overview
The engagement of children in economic activities has to be understood from children‟s point
of view. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) centers on children‟s best interest,
a concept was differently conceptualized by theoreticians. At first sight, the best interest of
the child relates to his/her protection. Based on the fact that children are vulnerable in relation
to adults, paternalist researchers argue that education is primary for children development. At
the same time, work was conceptualized as contrary to education, and their primary goal was
to abolish all kinds of work, starting with the worst forms of labour (as defined by ILO). The
paternalist view was criticized by liberations, which unfolded that a main right for children is
to be involved in all matters that concern them. Taking children seriously became a main aim
for liberationist scholars, who advocated that all kinds of child work should be respected.
Liberationist scholars focused on improving working conditions, instead of providing the
abolition of work as a solution to children exploitation. In addition, for liberation view,
children were seen as competent actors in all circumstances, fact that was in total opposition
to paternalism. Children‟s competence in decision making created a debate between various
scholars. For the emancipation school, children were primarily “beings” and were seen as
competent unless they are proved to be incompetent in taking decisions in specific situations.
Consequently, a focus was to ensure that children have a voice, which means being active
participants in society. As contrary to the emancipation view, welfare perspective supported a
version similar to paternalism, but acknowledged that in specific situations children may be
competent. Consequently, they should be involved in consultations while the others take
decisions in their interest. Presenting an overview of the main approaches on children‟s rights
creates a framework in analysing how the topic of children‟s work has to be tackled. Along to
the international legislation that regulates child labour and establishes when children‟s work
is a danger for children‟s development, working children‟s movements expressed their views
about the topic. Understanding the aspects tackled by working children and armonizing them
with ILO will mean a better representation of children‟s voices in society. In this respect,
emancipation and liberationist theorists claim that society should make a step forward in
ensuring children‟s right to participation not only on a formal level. The next chapter will

18 | P a g e
focus on the legislative framework with regard to children‟s work, sketching the main
international and internal regulations.

Children’s work in Romania

1. ILO Statistical data: children in employment worldwide

Most of the statistics regarding the engagement of children‟s into economic activities
worldwide are provided by the International Labour Organization (ILO). According to this
data which is presented as evidence in the research of Viorel Sîrca (2017)1 in 2000, around
the world, 185 million children under 15 years were involved into economic activities. In
addition, International Labor Organization showed that in 2005, 20% of all the world‟s
children were constantly working daily and 171 million children work in hazardous
conditions or were at risk while performing their work. Moreover, the same report states that
other aprox. 8.4 million children were involved in other “worst forms of child labour” and 1.2
million children were victims of trafficking. An estimation of ILO reveals that, in the
following years, the number of working children abruptly raised, reaching more than 265
million children in 2012. (Sârca, 2017). A more recent statistic of ILO published 2014
(Global Child Labour Trends 2008-2012. Geneva) shows that in 2012 there were 264 Mio.
children „in employment”, aged 5 to 17, out of which 148 Mio. were boys and 116 Mio. were
girls. From this 264 Mio. Children “in employment”2, 168 Mio. children were “child
labourers”3 (100 Mio. boys and 68 Mio. girls) and 85 Mio. were “children working in
hazardous conditions”4. ILO also provides statistical data related to the number of children
aged 5 to 14 which are in employment and their distribution around the world. The total of
144 Mio. children aged 5 to 14 which are in employment are distributed as follows:
Asia/Pacific 64 Mio., in Africa and Subsahara are 58 Mio., in Latin America and Caribbean 9
Mio. and in other regions of the world 13 Mio. (ILO, 2014). The data of children in
1
http://fiatiustitia.ro/ojs/index.php/fi/article/viewFile/313/295, Access date 02.06.2017
2
Children in employment-children engaged in any activity falling within the production boundary in the System
of National Accounting for at least one hour during the reference period
3
Child labourers- children performing work which is considered as unsuitable for their age and detrimental for
their health
4
A child working in hazardous conditions- hazardous work is considered as a worst form of child labour. Work
in industries and occupations designated as hazardous, 43 or more hours per week in industries or occupations
not designated as hazardous
19 | P a g e
employment rates reveals that 26,2% of the total number of children aged 5 to 14 from the
African continent have an employment. In Asia 10,1% of the total number of children have a
work place, while in Latin America 8,1% of the total number of children work. In other
regions, the total percentage of children in employment rates is of 5.1.

So, more than half of the total number of children in employment under 17 (264 Mio.) have
less than 14 years (144 Mio.). These 144 Mio. children represent 11,8% from the total
number of children aged 5 to 14. Under these circumstances, the traditional version of
childhood, characterized as a period of school and play is not representative for almost 12%
of the total number of children aged 5 to 14 around the world.

2. Statistics: Children engaged into economic activities in Romania

According to the Statistic Yearly Report from 2003 quoted by Maria Carmen Pantea in her
book Children who work in Romania (2008), in our country there are approximately 5 Mio.
children. Thus, the data provided by the National Institute of Statistics in 2003 reveal that the
total number of children aged to 5 to 17 is of approximately 3.9 Mio. , covering 17,4% of the
total population. In addition the data employed by Maria Carmen Pantea reveal that most of
these children are aged between 10-14 years, this being a result of the demographic changes
(Pantea, 2008: 162). The same sources also provide data about the age distribution. Hence,
31,3% of the children cover 5 to 9 years segment, 43% are between 10 and 14 and 24,9% are
between 15 to 17. According to the mentioned statistics, 64,1 % of the households where the
children live have between 3 and 4 people, most of them being located in urban areas, while a
quarter of the total number of children aged to 5 to 17 live in households that comprise more
than 5 people. The majority of households included in the last category are situated in rural
areas.

A more recent statistical data is provided by the 2011 Census. Hence, according to the
National Census conducted in 2011, from the total number of 20,121,641 people,
approximately 6% are persons between 5 and 19 (3.253.070). Thus, 1.045.029 are children
under 5 years old, 1.054.391 are between 5 and 9 years old, 1.090.226 between 10 and 14 and
5
1.108.453 are between 15 and 19. The 2011 Census shows a descending curve, fact that

5
Data taken from the official website of the 2011 Census http://www.recensamantromania.ro/rezultate-2/,
Last accessed on 2.06.2017
20 | P a g e
involves that lesser and lesser children are born during time. With regard to the gender
distribution, the data from 2011 reveals that there are more boys than girls. (See Figure 1)
Considering that 7 years have passed since the data was collected, in 2017 there are approx.
2.099.420 children between 6 and 16.

Age Total number Number of Boys Number of Girls

0-5 1.045.029 537.080 507.949

5-9 1.054.391 541.859 512.532

10-14 1.090.226 559.372 530.854

15-19 1.108.453 568.072 540.381

Figure 1: Gender distribution of persons under 19 Source: 2011 National Census

As concerning the engagement of children in economic activites, our country confronts with a
lack of statistical data. In addition, even the few data provided by the official documents are
contradictory. While the 2004 Report published by the Ministry of Labour, Social Solidarity
and family shows that approximately 900.000 children are engaged into economic activities,
the data provided by the National Institute of Statistics shows that the number of children
engaged in economic activities is of 82.884, according to parents‟ declarations and 141.905
according to what children declared. The differences between the two data may be related to
the way they define the concept “children engaged into economic activities.” In addition, in
her study Children as Economic Agents, Deborah Levison showed that the importance of
children‟s paid and unpaid work is overlooked (Deborah, 2000). Consequently, parents and
children may underestimate and even mute children‟s economic activities and roles.
According to Viorel Sîrca, in spite of the insufficient and undercomplex data collection, there
is clear evidence that the percentage of children engaged into economic activities in rural
areas is higher than in urban regions, children working in agriculture, housework and
livestock. The next part of this chapter presents the data from the two official statistics.

A main source of data is the study conducted by the Ministry of Work, Social Solidarity and
Family, The Work Department of the United States Government and UNICEF Romania in
2004. According to it, in Romania around 900,000 children are involved into economic
activities, out of which more than two thirds are engaged into household chores in rural areas.
21 | P a g e
As explained by Maria Carmen Pantea, (Pantea, 2008:163), the report focuses on activities
which are statistically considered falling within the production boundary of material goods
and services, including domestic labour. An exception is constituted by the activities realized
in households by its members. At the same time, the study reveals that approximately
300,000 children work on a regular basis, get some material compensation for their work,
most of the times without having any documents. These children may be included in the
group of working children, as international definitions render (Ministry of Work, Social
Solidarity and Family, 2004).

Other set of data related to the engagement of children into economic activities is provided by
the National Institute of Statistics (2003). The National Survey of Children Activities
conducted by INS in 2003 showed that parents report the 82.884 children are engaged into
work. In addition the same statistics indicates that according to children‟s declarations,
141.905 are working. The study assessed the degree of children in work. The evaluation was
performed based on questionnaires given regularly to parents and children. According to
Carmen Pantea (2009: 163), possible limitations of this evaluation rest on the degree of social
desirability and in some extent to the way parents know/ perceive the activities performed by
their children.

In addition to these two statistics, in 2012, World Vision Romania published a study that
assessed the time spent at work by children from rural areas in Romania. The research
indicates that the average time spent at work by children from rural areas is about two hours,
but 13% of the children declared that they work at least 4 hours per day.

“Worst forms of child labour in Romania”

The available statistics also relate to the percentage of children involved into the worst forms
of labour, as defined by the ILO Convention No. 182 concerning the Worst Forms of Child
Labour (1999). A national study on abused and neglected children in families conducted by
the National Authority of Child Protection and Adoption (ANPCA) unfolds that one of 10
children felt exploited by their parents, being compelled to work, beg or take care of their
younger siblings (apud Brown et. All.2002, in Pantea, 2008). Still, the study is not
statistically representative, as it was conducted on a non-representative sample at national
level. The study conducted by ANPCA also shows that 13% of the interviewed parents

22 | P a g e
admitted that they did not let children attend school (ibidem). The latest statistic published by
the National Authority for the Protection of Child Rights and Adoption state that in 2016, 337
children were exploited in their families through work, 132 were exploited for committing
infractionalities (stealing, begging, pick pocketing, prostitution). In addition, in 2016 were
registered 10181 cases of neglect (there is a high possibility that out of this 10.000, a part of
these children got involved in activities defined by ILO as worst forms of child labour
(http://www.copii.ro/statistica-2016/, accessed in 24.05.2017)

The report of the Ministry of Work Social Solidarity and Family from 2004 provides some
estimates related to the number of children that are involved in activities defined by ILO as
worst forms of child labour. Approximately 60.000-70.000 children from Romania are
victims of trafficking, prostitution, involved in drugs trafficking, stealing. Out of these
60.000-70.000, nearly 2000 are considered street children, being concentrated in the vicinity
of big cities, especially Bucharest. (Apud MMSF, 2004 in Pantea 2009: 164) Moreover, one
third of the street children are illiterate (Stefănescu, Panduru, INS, ILO, 2004) According to
the ILO report from 2004 and the research conducted by Ministry of Work, Social Solidarity
and Family in 2004, there are still some isolated cases of slave children in Romania, namely
that work on behalf of the duties accumulated by their families and are subject of extreme
marginalization and deprivation. (Apud MMSF, 2004 in Pantea 2008: 164)

As summed up by Sîrca (2017) based on the statistical data collected on the activities
performed by children engaged into economic activities (See INS, 2003, Save the Children
Romania 2002, 20056, Ghinăraru, 2004) most of the children economically engaged are doing
agricultural work, which, though it is a seasonal occupation, involves productive activities
throughout the year. As INS statistics reveal, 89% of the children engaged into economic
activities work in agriculture, 5% in industry and construction work, 3% focus on activities
related to services, working in restaurants, hotels or selling and 3% are involved into other
kinds of activities, including begging, stealing, prostitution, garbage picking.

Considering the specific of Romanian economy, determining the share of children engaged in
economic activities is difficult since most of the activities they are involved in are
discontinuous in character and mostly performed in their own household. Considering that
household production for the use of the family, especially in the rural areas, is significant,

6
http://www.salvaticopiii.ro/?id2=00060005#Rapoarte anuale.html last accessed on 22.05.2017
23 | P a g e
these activities become economic activities. Therefore, assessing the number of children
involved in economic activities and their share in the total number of children implies making
reference both to the children who engage into economic activities in a "reference period"
and to those who, although maintain close ties with their work, even if they are not at work at
a particular reference period. What is more, unpaid and paid domestic work represents a daily
work for the largest amount of children around the world, but it lacks visibility because its
conditions of work are mostly hidden and the activities performed may easily become subject
to underestimation. Consequently, children that are regularly performing domestic work tend
not to be included in statistics because they and their families do not consider it a work.

Possible explanations why children decide to work

The incidence of child work is connected to the social economic status of the family and
communities perception about work. By exploring the factors that determine children to
become active economic agents researchers come to the conclusion that aspects related to
work perception in the communities and the social economic status represent risk factors of
child work.

Thus, the data published by INS (2003) outlive that the incidence of child work is different
from region to region (See Pantea, 2008, Figure 1: The distribution of active economic
children on the regions). Hence, the highest percentage of children involved into economic
activities is registered in South and South West (25.8%, according to parents‟ declarations,
27.1 according to children‟s declarations in the South; 25% according parents‟ declarations
and 18.2 % according to children‟s declaration in the South West), while the lowest is
registered in Bucharest, West and Center (0.8% according to parents‟ declarations and 0.5%
according to children‟s declarations in Bucharest; 4% according to parents‟ declarations and
3.5% according to children‟s declarations in the West; 5.8% according to parents‟
declarations and 8.9% according to children‟s declarations in the Center) In this sense, Pantea
explains that the engagement of children into work represents a practical need and a social
expectation (2008: 170-193). While analyzing the correlations between region‟s poverty and
the rate of child work as shown by INS in the report from 2003, Pantea states that the two
variables do not seem too correlated. Instead, the poverty of the region is highly correlated to
the gravity of the forms of work. In this sense, the author uses the term “children

24 | P a g e
unemployment”, which relates to those children that are looking for a workplace. Most of the
working children come from the rural areas, the rural area and region poverty representing
risk factors for child work. (Pantea, 2008: 190).

Although researchers point that most of the children that are active economic agents come
from rural area, child work is also found in urban regions. Considering that people from
urban areas are strongly connected to rural areas, the majority of children engaged into
economic activities in urban areas work in agriculture. In addition, children from urban areas
may perform construction work, cleaning, work in the markets, restaurants, hotels, or perform
activities such as car washing or selling. (ibidem) In urban areas, most visible seem to be
street children, namely the children that beg, pick garbage or steal. Moreover, types of work
that children are usually employed to, especially girls, are household chores and taking care
of siblings. These types of work are usually underreported by parents and children alike
because they are intermittent.

Although poverty represents a risk factor, the researchers proved that the involvement of
children into work is rather a parents‟ option, being connected to the fact that in these
communities people perform subsistence agriculture where only family members are
involved. In addition, Pantea notes that other possible explanation may be the legislative
difficulties that appear when drop out children want to re-enroll into schools. (ibidem)

The data revealed by the National Survey on Children Activities (2003) shows that according
to parents‟ declaration, children from 5 to 9 years work only in agriculture. (Apud INS, 2003
in Pantea, 2008). Related to the age when they began to work, most of the children asked in
the mentioned survey declared that they began to work between 6 and 11 years. In addition,
Pantea adds that in Roma communities‟ children work in agriculture from 7-8 years and after
14 they work and get the same money as adults do. (Pantea, 2008: 191) The engagement of
children into economic activities may be influenced by family characteristics, such as social-
economic status, parents‟ level of education and attitude related to education, parent‟s
occupational status, the number of family members, the health status of family members, the
way work and education are perceived in the group they belong to.

In Romania statistics point that children‟s work is usually gendered, but gendered divisions
becomes more obvious for children that have more than 11 years. Other main point rendered
by the data revealed by INS (2003) relates to the differences between the percentage of
25 | P a g e
parents that consider that children are working and the percentage of children that see
themselves as engaged into economic activities. Hence, in some areas a higher percentage of
children report that they are working as compared to adults (South: 27.1% -children- as
compared to 25.8%-parents-; North East: 17.9%-children- as compared to 14.9%-parents-;
Center: 8.9%- children-as compared to 5.8%-parents-), while in other regions the situation is
quite the opposite (West: 3.5%-children- as compared to 4.0%-parents-; South West: 18.2%-
children- as compared to 25.%-parents-). There are also regions where the difference is less
significant (Bucharest: 0.5% -children-as compared to 0.8%-parents-; North West: 13.4%-
children-as compared to 13.3% -parents-; South East 10.5%-children- as compared to 10.4%-
parents).

Along to the idea of social desirability, the differences between children‟s and parents‟
declarations related to the engagement of children as active economic agents may be linked to
the perception of work. Owing into consideration that work represents a social construct,
different communities may have different definitions for this concept.

According to Pantea (2008) work may have different meanings. Depending on the individual
and the community he/she belongs from, work may be perceived as a form of familial
solidarity, which means that working activities are seen as a way of helping out in the family.
A second approach strikes work as a form of social control, work being linked to
responsibility and adulthood and being considered opposite to bad behaviour. Thirdly, work
is seen as gender socialization, with girls working together with their mothers and sisters,
while boys going to work with their fathers and brothers. A main aspect of this social
construction of work deals with underestimating the value of work considered as specific to
women and girls. Next, Pantea holds that work may be understood as a path towards
adulthood, as it involves the assimilation of experience which may be useful during lifetime.
In addition, Pantea shows that some kinds of work are perceived as connected to ethnicity,
some people linking child labour to Roma children. This approach leads to a simplification of
the activities performed by children, devaluing children activities even more. Besides, it
deepens social tendencies to perceive Roma people as disruptive because of their ethnicity.
Work may also be perceived as a way towards financial independence, as children often
perceive part time working from the point of view of obtaining their pocket money. In
addition, Pantea reveals that children‟s answers sometimes portray work as a way of
relaxation (Pantea, 2008: 208). Pantea‟s classification about the social construction of the
26 | P a g e
works realized by children ends with analyzing two problematic cases, namely the work
conducted by street children and the work conducted by children who realize unpaid work in
exchange for their parents‟ debts, respectively the cases of children living in servitude.
(Pantea, 2008: 193-217)

Overview

This chapter is meant to build a comprehensive image about children‟s work in Romania, as
illustrated in the scientific literature. Starting from the statistic data published by ILO which
presents that worldwide more that 264 Mio of chidren are “in employment”, the chapters
emphasizes that work free childhood paradigm is no longer valid.

For 12% of the total number of children childhood is not characterized only by school and
play. Although Romania lacks consistent data on children‟s engagement into economic
activities, researchers show that work is present is children‟s daily lives. Ranging from
agriculture (most frequently met-Sîrca, 2017; Ghinăraru, 2004) to construction work, services
(cleaning, serving, cooking tasks in restaurants, hotels or selling products) and even to other
kinds of activities seen by ILO as worst forms of labour (litering, begging, hazardous work;
stealing, prostitution, drug trafficking- the last three are conceptualized by Working
Children‟s Movements as crimes, Dakar Declaration-1998), children‟s works are usually seen
as marginal. Perceiving children‟s work as marginal is according to Pantea a reminiscence of
the communist mentality and it may be an effect of parents‟ and children‟s attitude towards
work. Both the degree of social desirability of the target groups that appears when the
research participants answer some questions and the traditional mentality of communities to
undermine children‟s work and role in their families constitute causes that lead to a
superficial representation of children‟s engagement in working activities.

By exploring the factors and the processes that influence children to work and the conveyed
meanings of work in children‟s lives, Pantea (2008) states that children‟s work is both a
social expectation and a practical necessity. In addition, work is regarded by parents‟ and
children alike as helping and strikes as an ordinary component of the traditional communities.
At the same time, the aspects comprised in the perspectives unfolded by Pantea (2008)
outline that work involves many dimensions.

27 | P a g e
Summing up, in the Romanian society, work tends to be regarded as beneficial to children as
long as children aquire skills perceived by their communities as necessary for their
development. Nonetheless, most of the approaches about the work realized by children fail to
take into consideration children voice and opinions or even when they do so, they manage to
cover chidlren‟s views only at a superficial level. As Pantea explained, most of the times
children‟s opinions are influenced by their communities and families and there is a high risk
that children answer in relation to what they think is expected from them. Besides, some of
the activities included in the category of worst forms of labour represent crimes and not work
(conceptualizing stealing, prostitution, forced work, drug trafficking, forced begging as
“work” exacerbates the discourse about child labour and exploitation in the scientific
literature). Considering all points mentioned, offering children the chance to have a say on
what concerns their engagement into economic activities should be a priority for researchers.
What is more, children‟s engagement into economic activities has to be officially
acknowledged and provisions that regulate children‟s work need to be included in legislation.
The next chapter tackles the coverage of this topic in both the international and the internal
law system.

Legal approaches to children’s work in Romania

International law states that a child is every person under the age of 18 years. The main
document that deals with the promotion, protection and respect of the rights of every child is
the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Romania ratified this Convention in
September 28 1990, therefore assuming the protection of the rights of every child. Also,
Romania ratified the ILO Conventions, respectively the Convention No. 138 concerning
Minimum Age for Admission to Employment (1973) and the Convention No. 182 concerning
the Worst Forms of Child Labour (1999). Romania ratified the former convention in 1975
and the latter in 2000. In addition, the Romanian Government signed a Memorandum of
understanding with ILO in 2000 which related to the elimination of child labour,
memorandum which was extended in June 2002 for 5 more years. (See Pantea, 2008: 220).
The main cooperation domains established by the memorandum are: collection, the analysis
and diffusion of data about children engaged into economic activities, the implementation of
programs that prevent the early engagement of children into economic activities and the
promotion of campaigns regarding working children.
28 | P a g e
As a direct consequence of ratifying the ILO Convention No. 138, Romania pursues a
national policy to abolish child labour, which is the ultimate goal established by ILO. In
addition, the Convention No. 138 frames a generic standard for differentiation of acceptable
and legitimate “child work” and the illegitimate and harmful child labour by establishing
minimum ages and three types of work: light/general/ hazardous.

Globally Exemption for “Developing”

Countries
General Minimum Age Not less than the age of 14 years
(Art. 2) compulsory schooling, 15
years or more
Light Work 13 years 12 years
(Art. 7)
Dangerous/Hazardous 18 years 18 years
Work
(Art 3)

Figure 2: Summary of Convention No. 138;

Saadi, 2016 Reader, Module 4: Work and Education in Children‟s Lives

The Convention No. 138 was criticized by the Movements of Working Children and Youth,
the International Movement of Working Children and Youth stating in Dakar Declaration
(1998) that “work should be in accordance with the capacity and development of each and
every child, and not depend on his/her age”.

Although Romania ratified the Convention No. 138 and the international legislation has
priority over the national one, Romanian Labour law provides regulations only for the paid
work stipulated by a work contract, excluding any reference to other types of work.

The main provisions of the internal legislation related to children engagement into work are
found in the Romanian Constitution, in the Law 272/2004 concerning the protection and
promotion of children‟s rights and in the Labour Code.

29 | P a g e
Furthermore, the Law 272/2004 also refers to children‟s rights to be protected against drugs,
abuse and neglect. According to the Article 6 of the Law 272/2004 actualized in 2016,
children have to be “protected against all forms of abuse, neglect, exploitation and any form
of violence”. The Article 89 from the Chapter VI: Child protection against abuse, neglect,
exploitation and any form of violence” states that:

“The child has the right to be protected against abuse, neglect, exploitation, trafficking, illegal
migration, kidnapping, violence, Internet pornography and of all the others forms of violence
irrespective of the environment where he is located: family, learning institutions, medical,
protection, centers where he is monitored as a suspect of crimes and rehabilitation/detention
centers, Internet, Media, workplace, sport centers, community, etc”.

Moreover, the Article 91 and 92 from the same law are mainly focused on Child Protection
against Economic Exploitation:

“(1) The child has the right to be protected against exploitation and cannot be constrained to a
work or domestic activity or outside family, including in the learning institutions, special
protection, reeducation and detention or in the cultural, artistic, sport, advertising and
modeling, which present a potential risk and is susceptible to compromise his education or to
be harmful for his health, physical development, mental spiritual, moral, or social.

(2) Any practice, through which the child is given by one, or both of his parents, or by his
legal representative, in exchange of a reward, of a debt or not, with the purpose of work
exploitation is illegal”.

Along these aspects, the Article 91 outlines that the cases of children that work instead of
going to school need to be communicated by learning institutions to the Direction of Social
Work. In addition, the competent authorities have to implement all the measures for
supporting working children school reintegration, stipulates the same law. In addition, the
Labour Inspection, in collaboration to the Ministry of Work have to implement and promote
campaigns in order to inform children about the protection measures they can benefit from
and the risks involved by the cases of economic exploitation. Through their campaigns, the
institutions also have to address to public, professionals that work in the field of child
protection and employers in order to ensure the best protection of children against economic
exploitation.

30 | P a g e
In the Article 92, The Law 272/20047 establishes that children have the right to be
remunerated for their involvement in cultural, artistic, sport, advertising and modeling only if
the Department of Social Work from their area is informed beforehand and in accordance to
the provisions stipulated by the Government Order HG 75/2015. The Article 4 from HG
75/2015 renders the conditions in which children can be employed into these fields:

“The activities realized by children in cultural, artistic, sport, advertising and modeling noted at
the Art. 2 may be conducted only if they respect the follow conditions:

a) They are not dangerous or hazardous for children, as the actual legislation supposes;
b) They are realized in conformity with child age: between 9.00 and 17.00 for children under
5; between 8.00 and 20.00 for the children between 5 and 12 years; between 7 and 22.00
for the children after 12 ;
c) The activity should not last more than 1 hour/week and is recommended to be split in
different days for children under 1 year old, 2 hours/day for children between 1 and 5, 4
hours/day 4 hours/day for children between 5 and 12 and 6 hours/day for children after 12.”
(See HG 75/2015, http://www.copii.ro/categorii_legislatie/hotarari-de-guvern/)

HG 75/2015 establishes the length of the continuous activity to maximum 15 minutes for
children under 1, 30 minutes for children 1-5, maximum 45 minutes for children after 5, the
number of rehearsals of any kind to 1/day for children under 1 and 2/day for children after 1
and the minimum number breaks. As concerning the maximum number of days in which
children may be involved, the legislative act stipulates that children may realize these
activities for maximum 4 consecutive days, followed by a break of minimum 48 hours. The
activities organized in the school holidays should not affect children‟s rights to leisure and
play and in the activities that last for more than 2 months, the child has a break of 14 days
after the first 60 days of work. (ibidem)

As Sîrca unfolds (2017:281), along with ratifying international conventions and

implementing the ILO-IPEC Program8, Romania also referred to the issue of child labour in

7
Law 272/2004:
http://www.euroavocatura.ro/legislatie/1223/Legea_272_2004,_Actualizata_2016,_privind_protectia_si_promo
varea_drepturilor_copilului/page/10#nextPage, Access date: 2.06.2017;
8
IPEC- The International Program for the Elimination of Child Labour was established in 2000 with the
financial support of the US Government. Its main directions are: offering technical assistance to Romania for
preventing the spread of “child labour”, strengthening the capacity of governmental and non-governmental
organizations and bodies to combat “child labour”, conducting qualitative and quantitative studies to evaluate
the nature and the dimension of “child labour”, creating awareness and sensitizing the public about the
phenomenon of “child labour” (See Pantea 2009:228)
31 | P a g e
the Labour Code and funded a National Steering Committee9 to prevent and combat this
phenomenon. Other bodies funded in order to protect children from economic exploitation
represent the Intersectorial County teams coordinated by the General Directorates of Social
Work and Child Protection.

The Romanian Labour Code stipulates that the individual becomes able to work after the age
of 16. Still, a child may sign a working contract at the age of 15 if he has the approval of his
parent or of his legal representatives and if the activities are not harmful for his physical and
mental development. In addition, it is forbidden to employ children under 15 in any kind of
work. The employment into hard, dangerous and hazardous work of persons under 18 is
illegal. These types of works are established by the decision of the government. The hard,
dangerous and hazardous works are established by appreciating the level of risk, the intensity
of harmful factors, the time of being exposed to these conditions, the degree of physical effort
in unfavorable conditions of environment, noise and vibrations, the existence of working
conditions that involve a higher degree of mental solicitation, determined by an intense
rhythm, illness and accident risk, the structure and level of morbidity specific for the work
place and other particular conditions that lead to a premature depreciation of one‟s body. (See
Law No. 31/1991 concerning the establishment of working time under 8 hours/day for
employees that work in specific conditions- harmful, hard and dangerous)

As shown by a report of Save the Children Romania10, the Romanian legislation notes that
children have the right and obligation to continue their studies until the end of the mandatory
cycle and the employers that signed working contracts with children between 15 and 16 have
the obligation to support them in order to continue their schooling. In addition, internal
legislation stipulates that a person is declared as employed only if he/she signs a working
contract with the employer. In the case of children, Romanian legislation also mentions that
children have a half an hour lunch break if they work more than 4 hours and a half. Some
regulations establish interdictions for working children, namely: children under 16 cannot be
employed to load, unload or transport, and, in the case of dangerous materials it is forbidden
for any person under 18 to engage in their loading, unloading and transportation; men under
18 and women are not allowed to paint if the substance contains lead pigments; children

9
See HG 617/2004, Art. 1-11, http://www.mmuncii.ro/pub/imagemanager/images/file/Legislatie/HOTARARI-
DE-GUVERN/HG617-2004.pdf , Last accessed on May 21 2017
10
http://salvaticopiii.ro/upload/p00060008_Incadrarea%20la%20munca%20a%20copiilor.pdf, last accessed on
3.06.2017
32 | P a g e
between 16 and 18 may load, carry or load more than 5 kilos (women) and more than 12 kilos
(men); person under 18 are not allowed to work at height, in mining, forest industry and other
activities as provisioned by the Specific Norms of Labour Protection. (ibidem)

Beyond the provisions of the Labor Code, the Labour Inspectorate recalls the provisions of
Law 187/2012. The Article 127 of this act stipulates that “the employment of a minor child a
non-compliance with legal age or using him for the provision of activities in violation of the
legal provisions relating to the employment of minors child is a crime punishable from three
months to two years or fine”. (See Sîrca, 2017: 282)

At first sight, the provisions of the Romanian legislation are in accordance to the international
law regarding child labour. Still, Romanian Labour Code regulates only the situations of
official employment, which have a low incidence. For the rest of the cases when children are
engaged into economic activities, there are no clear provisions and even more, it lacks their
monitorization. Hence, they are viewed only in the Law 272/2004, which treats them as an
abuse. Without being properly monitored and acknowledged, most of these cases are not
reported. The Children Helpline Yearly Report show that in 2015, almost haf of the cases
reported were of abuse (40,58% out of 105.194)

From these cases, 3,03% had as object the exploitation of children through work, 3,06%
begging and 1,64% child trafficking. In addition, 31,67% were cases of neglect, which is a
factor that increases children‟s vulnerability to exploitation.

As Pantea shows (2008: 232), Romania was criticized for the lack of legislation related to
unpaid work by ILO. Although Romania ratified the Convention No 138, which refers to all
kinds of work, including illegal and unpaid, the Romanian Labour Code does not have
regulations related to unregistered work. At present, the international law on child labour is
stipulated in accordance to the ILO Conventions No. 138 and No. 182, which establish the
number of hours per week an the types of work that may be accepted for children. Being a
country that ratified these conventions, Romania has to respect these regulations (as an
obligation followed by the conventions‟ ratification) A summary of the international law on
child labour as indicated by the conventions was conceptualized by Iven Saadi in the 2016
Reader for the Module 4 „Work and Education in Children‟s Lives”:

Age group Children’s work and employment

Work not designated as hazardous Worst forms of child
labour (WFCL)
Excluded Light Other forms Hazardous WFCL
forms of work of work not work other than
work designated hazardous
as work
hazardous
Children Children Non- Hazardous Trafficked
33 | P a g e
 below aged 5-11 economic work ( in children,
minimum years production industries forced and
age (mainly and bonded
specified unpaid occupations child
for light household designated labour,
work services) as commercial
Children Children Work not designated as hazardous, sexual
within the aged 12- hazardous in activities 43 or more exploitation
age 14 years included in the SNA hours per of children,
specified production boundary week in use of
for light performed for less than industries children for
work 14 hours/week and illicit
Children Children Work not designated as hazardous in occupations activities
at or aged 15- activities included in the SNA not
above the 17 years production boundary performed for 14 designated
general or more hours per week, but less than as
minimum 43 hours per week hazardous)
working
age

Figure 3: ILO- Child Labour

Saadi, 2016, Reader, Module 4: Work and Education in Children‟s Lives

The Figure 3 shows ILO distinction between harmful and not harmful works, with the grey
areas representing cases when the children‟s engagement into specific activities is seen as
inappropriate for their health and development. As the table shows, between 5 and 11
children may be involved only in unpaid household services and as the child gets older he
may be engaged in more diverse activities. This classification was criticized by working
children‟s movements because age should not be a decisive factor that influences what a child
can do and not do, but rather his capacity and development (International Movement of
Working Children and Youth, Dakar Declaration, 1998). In addition, working children‟s
movements held that prostitution, slavery and drug trafficking by children should be viewed
as crimes and not “worst forms of work” (International Movement of Working Children and
Youth, Dakar Declaration, 1998). Still, it is a clear that Romanian legislation should add
provisions that take into consideration other types of work than the official employment.
Agricultural activities, domestic labour, care for siblings and elderly are the most
representative types of work assigned to children in Romania. An important point that has to
be mentioned is that the harmonization of Romanian legislation in accordance to the
international one should take into account the critics brought by working children movement
and the views of Romanian children about how work should be regarded as. The project
related to the establishment of Children Advocate announced by the Ministry of Work and
Social Solidarity in June 2017 represents an important step in ensuring children‟s right to
participation in all fields that concern them, including the engagement in economic activities.

34 | P a g e
Overview
This chapter aimed to present the international and domestic law that regulates children‟s
work in Romania. Worldwide, work is regulated by ILO Conventions No 138 and No 182.
For making the distinction between harmful and beneficial, ILO established a minimum age
criteria (Convention No 138). In this sense, specific types of work that were regarded as
harmful for a 11 years old child are seen as beneficial for a 12 years old (light work; still, the
types of work are defined by national provisions). As it was shown in the chapter, this
classification was criticized by Working Children‟s Movements who advocate that work
should be done in accordance to child capacities. In the Romanian legislation all types of
work, with the exclusion of work that is not registered as work is illegal before 15.
Consequently, which types of work are harmful and which are beneficial is regulated by
unwritten “laws” that each community may have and are rarely subject of monitorization.
This is the reason why researches hold that a major drawback of Romanian legislation is it
contains little provisions related to undeclared forms of work. The Romanian Labour Code
conceptualizes work only as employment, fact that creates space for children‟s exploitation.
For other types as work, such as domestic labour and work in agriculture, the Romanian
Labour Code did not add any provision, limiting its focus to declaring as illegal any work
conducted by children under 15. In addition, Romanian legislation presents some guidelines
only to specific areas (cultural, artistic, modeling, advertising, sport). For other types of work,
the only visibility is offered by the Law 272/2004, which is directed to prevent all forms of
exploitation. Consequently, children that work in Romania lack visibility in the Romanian
legislation, fact that entails that working children do not get any legal protection.
Furthermore, by not recognizing some types of work, children are vulnerable to exploitation,
as society sees these practices as normality. It generates a vicious cycle, of poverty and lack
of estimation for children‟s active role in the economy of the family.

Summing up, there is a primary need for the Romanian legislation to create provisions for
other types of work than the declared one. Arguing that even activities that are excluded from
the production boundary (including cleaning, servicing and repairing of household durables,
taking care of siblings and of elders, preparing and serving meals, cleaning and maintenance
of dwelling, feeding the livestock), working in agriculture, helpings parents to sell different
products, having artistic performances at different events, have to be acknowledged and
valued by families, I advocate that children should be empowered to perceive themselves as
active economic agents. In addition, legislation has to ensure their right of protection against
exploitation while granting them the right to participation. Distinguishing between necessity
and obligation, aspect that was stated by Working Children‟s organizations in the Kathmandu
Declaration (2005) has to become a priority for researchers and be included in the provisions
of the Romanian Labour law. The following chapters operate on how work is present in
children‟s daily lives, without excluding paid or unpaid activities. At the same time, the
research presents work from children‟s perspective, fact that means that sometimes the
distinction between school and work or between leisure time and work is blurry.
35 | P a g e
Research: How children perceive their work
Research methodology

As children‟s work is a relatively new area of study, there is a definite need of data in relation
to the engagement of children in the economic activities. In the last years, a large debate
emerged between researchers with regard to the meaning attached to work in children‟s lives.
Starting from the premise that children are competent actors who have a say related to the
aspects that concern them, the conducted research explore children‟s views about their work
and the meanings attached to it. Based on the view of the emancipation scholars, the research
had as main premise children‟s right to be valued as social actors‟ and contributors to their
households at present. Acknowledging children‟s rights at present does not necessarily mean
emphasizing their vulnerability. Instead, their vulnerability may be linked to communities‟
influence and principally to the ideas transmitted by family members.

At the same time, the conducted study points the main risk factors and it pleades for
regulating the legislation so that children have access to special rights that serve their best
interest. At a larger scale, the work sees children‟s work from a social-cultural point of view.
Based on the continuum model presented by Bourdillon (2011), I tried to observe both
harmful and positive aspects of working. To my mind, a certain type of work cannot be
regarded as detrimental or beneficial only by distinguishing between paid and unpaid and by
reporting to ages.

Workplace relations and the meaning attached to them in different situations, even when
“work” is not included within the SNA production boundary (to my mind the SNA
production boundary excludes main activities that allow society‟s multiplication- taking care
of children, domestic labour) are illustrative for the way the child is influenced by the
activities he/she performs. Illustrative for distinguishing between harmful and beneficial
work, the continuum model reflects the complexity of work situations, with work situations
ranging from intolerable to harmful, neutral, positive and beneficial in accordance to the
power relations established between children and adults during the working time. For each
kind of working conditions Bourdillon states that specific actions should be taken. While the
intolerable cases have to be eliminated and those responsible for getting there punished by
law, the harmful circumstances have to be improved and transformed, the neutral ones have
to be improved in order to become positive and the positive and beneficial ones should be
encouraged so as to aid children feel empowered.

The conducted research has various limits in the sense that it mainly illustrates the meanings
attached by children to their unpaid work and how they value unpaid work as compared to
paid work. Even in the cases when the interviewed got paid for realizing some activities,
which happened in least cases, most of the work they realized is still the unpaid, fact that may
determine them to further undervalue the unpaid work they do. While conducting the

36 | P a g e
research, I noticed particular cases when children felt vulnerable and presented risks to
marginalization. As a consequence, I included as a main point of analysis the danger of
“marginalization” and analyzed if the feelings of vulnerability are linked to the limits of
children‟s participation in decision-making in actions that concern them. During the
preparation of the thesis design, I conveyed a research of how marginalization is linked to
society and education, based on the theories illustrated in the first two chapters of the paper.
In this respect, I included between the topics of my study children‟s perception of relevant
actors that they interact with: family members, teachers, friends, colleagues.

Also, the employed analysis conveyed a meaning to the way each child identifies
himself/herself. This image is usually influenced by the experiences that children live and
especially the attitudes that others have in relation to their experiences/ activities. Therefore, I
encouraged children to talk about themselves, school, daily life, their relation to parents and
family members, their conceptions about childhood, what their desires and expectations are.
Analysing chhildren‟s interviews as linked to their environment and the specific of the
community shows the complexity of factors that influence children in their daily lives and
their engagement into economic activities.

The research follows a child-centered, subject-oriented approach on child work. Hence, it

attempts to understand children from a children‟s point of view and to take into consideration
the value and benefits that child work may bring. At the same time, the research established
as an objective the identification of main risk factors of vulnerability that may appear in
children‟s day to day life. As opposite to an objectifying approach, which perceives
children‟s work primarily as a deviation from “normal” childhood and focuses especially in
the long term returns of children‟s activities for society‟s welfare, the child centered
discourse acknowledges children as “social actors” and outlines that children‟s right to
participation also involves “taking them as seriously”.

Choosing the sample for the research

This study uses a mixed method of evaluation. Considering that my first interest relates to
exploring the meanings that children attach to the working activities they do, I used a
qualitative method of research, namely the half-structured interview. The half-structured
interviews allowed me to collect information about children‟s perception. Still, it appeared
the question how much my bias influenced the interviewed children. Therefore, I decided to
apply a survey with both open and closed questions in order to notice how children answer
the same questions if they are not asked supplementary questions.

First, I conducted 7 half-structured interviews with children from urban and rural areas
related to the way they see work and their engagement into work activities.I decided to take
as target group children from rural areas between 12 and 14. Therefore, I made use of
judgment samples and of snow ball methods. I conducted my research in a school from
Preoteasa, a village from Sălaj County, which is also the county where I live. I decided to
37 | P a g e
conduct the research in Preoteasa because this is a village where people‟s occupation is
predominantly agriculture. First, I approached D., a boy of 12 years from the village.
Approaching D. was relatively easy, owing the fact that my father who is a music teacher at
the “Liceul de Artă Ioan Sima Zalău” (an art school) told me about the fact that D. is working
in agriculture and then presented D. to me. As D had trust in my father, D was open to talk
about his life and experience. Next, I asked D. if I can get in contact with his colleagues and
ask them if they agree to have an interview related to the daily activities and works they do.
Out of the 9 children that learned at the school from the village 4 (2 boys and two girls) more
agreed to talk to me. Therefore, I went to D‟s house and I discussed with the children who
accepted to meet me. Before the interview I asked againg eachof them if they agree to have
the interview and informed them that it is not mandatory to provide answers for all the
questions. At that time, I had 7 subjects. Then I included F and S, a girl and a boy from the
same group age (12-13). F is from the same commune with the children from Preoteasa but is
enrolled at a different school and S is from Zalău. F and S were included in the sample to
cover aspects that were not so represented in the other cases. A main point considered was
that both F and S had in the past some health issues that they managed to overcome.

In order to assess how much the results of the interviews were influenced by my bias, and if
other children have other perspectives on work, I decided to apply a survey based on similar
questions. In the case of the survey, I decided to keep the agreement part and the note that the
child may answer only at the questions he feels comfortable to provide an answer. I kept
these points in order to ensure that children do not feel pressed in any way. A main point
related to the survey data is that I decided to let children choose by themselves if they want to
describe a school day or a holiday day. For the survey I chose a group of children from a
different age group, respectively 15-17. The survey was applied at two classes from Liceul
Ortodox from Zalău (the Orthodox Highschool from Zalău). For answering these surveys, the
children had one week. Before applying this survey, I attended two hours of social
counselling, which is a group session that takes place after classes where children are
encouraged to talk about themselves and their activities. During these classes, I presented
myself and I stood together with the children and their teacher of psychology/school
counsellor in the circle, getting involved in the activities. These groups were optional. Next, I
asked the teacher to ask them on my behalf if they agree to answer some questions about their
activities and their work. To those that agreed, together with Alina, their teacher, I gave the
surveys to them and asked them to answer the questions they want to when they had time.
After one week, the children that agreed to take part in the survey gave to Alina their
answers. I mention that they chose to write on a different paper than the survey paper that
they got. For the survey, the sample consisted from 31 children aged 15-17.

As the survey comprised both open and closed questions, I chose two methods of analysis. I
split the survey data into two tables and I included the data from the open questions, together
with the transcriptions of the interviews chosen to be part of the Sample in NVIVO 11
Program. The other information was spread into cathegories.

The research design

38 | P a g e
The study constitutes an exploratory research about the meanings that children attach to the
works they do, taking into account their system of values, expectations, relations to their
families and aspects of relevance. As the target group consists of children that are enrolled
into school, the research presents case studies of children of 12-13 years that combine
working with schooling. Based on the interviews, I realised a descriptive analysis of the
interviewed children, which outlines aspects that have a higher significance for each of them.
As a main paradigm I associated interpretivism, which is focused on „empathetic
understanding” to the view of childhood as illustrated by the emancipation theory. Thus,
interpretivist scholars consider that world should be seen through the eyes of the persons that
do the acting. Interpretivism starts from the premise that people are complex and understand
the same reality in different ways, often very different. In this sense, the interpretivist
approach values the experience and perception of individual, therefore being appropriate for a
research that has as one of its goals to value children‟s views about the working activities
they do. The same focus on child and the experienced he/she lives is conceptualized by
emancipation scholars, who also explore how children are influenced by the existent power
relations and advocate for empowering children to speak and be involved in the process of
decision making in the topics that concern them, including the engagement in economic
activities. Children‟s role as active economic actors is also acknowledged by socio-cultural
researchers. According to socio-cultural perspective, which is included as a guiding theory in
this paper, children‟s work has to be analyzed in its complexity, as a superficial analysis of
children‟s work leads on minimising it. In this respect, this study tried to identify activities
that children regard as work and activities that although children perceived as something else
than work, may be conceptualized as works. A specific challenge was to assert how children
relate school, work and leisure activities and when the differences among these cathegories
are blurred.

The objectives of the research

The study has as a main objective the exploration of the meaning that children convey to their
working activities and identifying what and how children are working. Owing the fact that
children‟s characteristics and beliefs are influenced by the context they live into, the first
questions of the interview concerning children‟s feelings and relations with the family
members. The research also focused on the way children perceive work in general, analysing
the difference between how children see work in general and the perception about their work.
Observing the interplay between family, friends, school and child identity represented a main
objective of the paper, validating the assumption that the way child is perceived by the other
main actors from his life and how he/she perceives himself/herself reflects on his/ her attitude
towards the work he/ she realises.

In addition, the study attempts to identify risk factors that may signal marginalization. Thus,
one of the question provoked children to talk about situations when someone was violent to
them (including verbal violence, bullying) while they where working, because they were not

39 | P a g e
working or in other situations (example: at school, in the peer group). Asking about the types
of activities they do and the working activities children do create an idea about the way
children approach to their work. Thus, children‟s attitude in relation to work is illustrated by
how much they decide to talk about it. A sign of devaluing work may be that when they are
asked to describe what they do in a day, they do not mention working.

The research also illustrates how children perceive work in relation to childhood in general
and if they consider normal that a child should work. In addition, the children are asked what
would they do in a day when they don‟t have to work. Both questions suggest child‟s attitude
about what he/she works. Nonetheless, it has to be considered that the answer to the first
question may be influenced by communities‟ views that were transmitted to the child.

From an ethic point of view, the present research attempts to create a different vision about
children‟s works, which adds value to their decisions and engagement into economic
activities. Treating children with respect, valuing them as social actors and ensuring their
participation in the decision makin in matters that concern them are rights mentioned in CRC
(1989). In other words, every child has the right to be treated with respect and to be asked his
view in situations that influence him/her. This does not mean that communities should not
safeguard children‟s working conditions and prevent their exploitation. In this direction, a
main step towards preventing children‟s exploitation is making their work visible and valued
(both in society and in legal provisions).

Research methods

This exploratory research was conducted based on two methods, namely half-structured
interview and survey. The half-structured interview was based on an interview guide to which
were added specific questions based on child‟s answers and attitudes. After the last interview
with the children that belong to the sample, I had a small discussion with the group in which I
asked for their feedback. The transcription of the interviews was introduced in tthe NVIVO
11 Programme. Concerning the survey, this was based on the interview guide and comprised
21 questions. For the open questions I realised a table that I imported in the NVIVO 11
Programme.

The half-structured interview

The qualitative research contributes towards unfolding and describing the phenomenon. It has
as main goals the description and understanding of the social phenomenon and extrapolation
of the results to similar situations. One of the methods is the qualitative interview, which
allows the researcher to collect the data straight from the respondent. The half-structured
interview (which is a type of qualitative interview) has some fixed questions, but allows the
interviewer to ask specific questions. This method offered me the chance to have a common
ground for the conducted interviews and to have to possibility to explore particular aspects at
the same time.

40 | P a g e
The advantage of the interview is that it creates an understanding of the attitudes. Still, there
are numerous studies which show that inteviews may be unappropriate to children because of
the power relations between the child and the researcher. As Pantea explains (2008: 284), the
researcher has to pay attention to some limitations that appear while conducting interviews
with children. Hence, considering that my subjects were children, before the interviews, I
attempted to create a climate of trust. Thus, I presented myself to them, I explained what I
study and then I read the consent. After children gave their consent (all together), I asked to
each of them to come in another room for the interview. Then, I asked the interviewed to help
me turn on the audio device, to decide where should the device be placed and told some jokes
or talked about how it would have been for me to be interviewed at his age (I would have
been very nervous, you know I was very shy). During the conversation, I employed a
language similar to the child. These methods were meant to diminish the relation of power
that may appear while conducting interviews with children. Adding the information that it is
fine if you refuse to answer a question also helped in establishing a connection with the
interviewed children. Furthermore, Pantea states (2008: 284) that the power relations may be
diminished if a researcher interviews two children simultanously or based on the drawings. In
this respect, I had a small talk conversation with all the children together before the interview
which created a certain climate of trust.

The interviews focused on children‟s work, family relations, children‟s leisure activities,
school and their opinion about school, children‟s relations with their colleagues, peer groups
and their teachers and the way they see their work and work in general. The interviews lasted
between 17 and 40 minutes and where audio registered after the children gave their consent.
The interview guide is attached in the Annex No 1. Considering that the interviewed children
were under 16, I asked for their parents‟ approval before asking children if they agree to take
part in the research sample. After explaining the objective of the paper and the fact that I will
not write children‟s names, only one parent did not agree. Consequently, I did not have an
interview with that child. I also met some children that were reluctant to interviews and I
accepted their decision, without insisting. After the last interview, I asked the children to give
me a feedbak about the interviews and how they felt. They declared that they are not used to
talk about themselves and the works they do. With relation to the fact whether someone
should be or should not be interested about their daily activities, their anwers were very
diverse. Some of them declared that it is nobody‟s bussiness what they do one day, but still
they answered that adults should be interested about how a child feels. At the same time,
children declared that sometimes adults are reluctant to what they are saying or they simply
do not want to listen them because „adults” are very busy (in this cathegory children included
parents and teachers). A specific aspect that I noticed in the short discussion after the
interview was that children consider that what they say does not have any relevance. Asked if
the teachers listen when they express their views, children answered that they do not have
relevant/serious ideas (this may be the feedback that they got from adults). Consequently, the
short discussion conducted after the interviews showed that children are used to not being
taken seriously.

41 | P a g e
Most of the interviews took place at D‟s house from Preoteasa, in a room. Preoteasa is a
village that belongs to the parish of Valcău de Jos, Sălaj County. It is situated in the North-
Western part of Romania, at 55 km distance from the city of Zalău, the Sălaj County
residence, on the superior course of the Barcău Valley, Şimleu Depression, between the
Meseş and the Plopiş mountains, which form the northern extremity of Western Carpathians.
It is a typical mountain village, with a population of 698 people (according to the 2002
census), who work in agriculture (generally pastoral farming). The majority of them are
Romanians, followed by Roma, Hungarians and Slovaks. On what concerns the educational
resources, the village has a Kindergarten, in which 13 children study, and a Secondary
School, in which 54 children study. Both of them are under the administration of Valcău de
Jos Secondary School, whose manager is a teacher of History and Geography, Mircea Gui.
Due to the insufficient number of children, the Preoteasa Secondary School‟s classes function
in a coupling regime. Thus, the pupils from the 5th grade stay in the same class with the
pupils from the 7th grade, whereas the pupils from the 6th grade stay in the same class with the
pupils from the 8th grade.

The place was familiar for all children interviewed. As a consequence of the fact that I did
not close the door, from time to time we were interrupted by the noise coming from the
animals (a chicken, a cow). In addition, there were moments when we could hear mobile
phones ringing, laughings, etc. Although the noise made the transcription of the interviews
very difficult, it made children feel at ease (because these were familiar noises). The
interviews were conducted in Novermber 2016. After each interview, I took some notes, but
the complete transcription I finalised in February-March 2017. As I mentioned earlier, the
noise hardened the transcription of the interviews.D., F. and S. were interviewed in a room
from my house, in Zalau. The place was familiar to children, considering that fact that all
three children knew my father beforehand and came at this location for music lessons.

While interviewing the children, I expressed my appreciation for the efforts they do in the
tasks they engage and their achievements, considering that theorists showed that children‟s
work is undervalued. All the children from the sample declared that school is very important
for them. The majority considered that combining working and school offers them
advantages in relation to children that do not work.

Coding and analysing interview data through NVIVO 11

QSR NVIVO11 is a qualitative data instrument that facilitates the organization and
interpretation of the data. The program allows the researcher to add some more analysis filter
and establish collections between data during the research process, by providing the options
to add new cases, sources and nodes.

First, I included the transcription of the interviews from the analysis sample in the program as
sources, in the folder titled „internals”. For each interview I realized a general description
(example: “Adr is a 12 year old girl from Preoteasa, a village from Sălaj county. She studies
in the school from the village in the Seventh grade.”), included in the document properties

42 | P a g e
and I provided a letter instead of a name. The same letters were included as „cases” and for
each of them were established attributes, such as age and gender. Hence, the data from the
internal folder (each interview that I conducted as nominated by a letter) was created as a
case, classified as a person and I established main attributes for them: sex, age group,
occupation, country of birth. Considering that all children were enrolled into schools, had the
same country of birth and belonged to the same age group, the difference rested only in
gender. The only case that is included in two sources is D, who is a cousin of F. In the
interview with F, F explicitly relates to D in two matters. In total, F‟s references to D consist
of 2.72% of the total reference and is related to the works‟ D does and the way F considers
that D approaches work:

Asked if it is good that a child helps his father in cutting woods from the forest, F points that
this type of situation does not seeem normal to her and related to D‟s case in order to present
her idea:

« 78. De exemplu, un copil vrea să îl ajute pe tatăl lui să taie lemne în pădure. E ok să îl ajute?

(F) Ăăă.. cu tăiatul lemnelor în pădure cum ai pomenit nu prea mi se pare mie așa.

79. Nu ți se pare? Un băiat

(F) Nu. Depinde și de vârstă. Dacă, de exemplu, are 17-18 ani, poate mai merge.

80. Da, ești mai mare. Da când ești micuț, n-ai nici forță, mai greu așa.

(F) Aha. Un verișor de-al meu vrea să conducă el cu tractorul și e plătit de oamenii din sat să meargă pe-acolo pe câmpuri
la ei să le lucreze pământul. El vrea asta, cred că îl și îndrumă unchiul, are grijă de el –eu așa gândesc.

88. Și e bine că face asta?

( F) MMM....acuma poate se învață și mai repede să conducă și..nu prea. Depinde, dacă el nu-i atâta de obosit. » F, 13,

(78. For example, a child wants to help his father to cut woods in the forest. Do you think it is fine if
he helps his father? F- Well, with wood cutting in the forest like you mentioned I don‟t think is fine.

79. Don‟t you think as such? I mean, in the case of a boy. F-No. It also depends on the age. If, for
example, the boy is 17 or 18, it may be reasonable.

80. Yes, when you are older. But when you are younger, you don‟t have physical strength, so it is
harder. F- Yes. For example, one of my cousins wants to drive the tractor and he is paid by villagers
to work their land. He wants to do this, but I think that also my uncle guides him in this direction
because he wants to take care of him- At least, this is my opinion.

81.Do you think is right that he does this? F- MMM…maybe he learns earlier to drive. Still, I don‟t
think is good. It depends if he is not so tired. Personal translation after F‟s interview, girl, 13)

43 | P a g e
Figure 4: NVIVO11- “Cases” Structure.

In the other cases, although children are colleagues, they do not explicitly talk one about the
other. Still, they all referred to their colleagues, affirming that their colleagues also work and
help their families, that his/her colleagues also consider they have too many homeworks (R),
that their colleagues laughed about them (R and Adr), or that they do not talk with their
classmates about work (boys from Preoteasa A, C, D).

Next, I created main nodes, respectively: work, school, family, childhood, daily activities ,
expectations, responsibility and I began the process of coding. As I coded the data, I included
child nodes for work (agriculture, domestic labour), school (benefits, shortcomings, teachers),
family (relationships, rules, values), expectations (parents, personal, teachers), responsibility
(family, school, work) and I created seven main nodes: appreciation, attitude (negative,
neutral, positive), friends, helping, marginalization, recreation (activities, desires), welfare. I
coded children‟s answers from the interviews, for different excerpts, choosing the appropriate
nodes that fit in different situations (See Annex No 3: Codebook. Project- Work in Children‟s
daily lives) As Figure 5 may show, the main references were included in the nodes “work”
and “family”. In the “work” node, the distribution between domestic labour and agriculture
was similar, with domestic labour having most of the references (91 while agriculture had
79). In the case of domestic labour, I included excerpts that refer to taking care of siblings,
cleaning, helping with the food preparation and taking care of livestock, while agricultural
work included planting, cutting the grass, seasonal works on the fields, working by tractor.

44 | P a g e
Figure 5: Nodes compared by number of coding references

Most of the references in the “domestic labour “node got noticed in the interview with Adr
(24), followed by the interview of F (19) and the interview of R (18). Still, those 24
references of Adr interview had only 3, 93% coverage (the smallest coverage of all the
interviewed girls). The difference appeared due to the fact that Adr employed only a few
words while talking about work. While exploring the answers provided by Adr it may be
observed that although she says that she likes work, Adr talks very little about her working
activities. This may be a proof that Adr sees the working activities she does (cleaning, taking
care of her brother, preparing food, feeding the domestic animals) as ordinary and
undervalues her work. Adr declared that she helps her mother 2-3 hours daily. The main
coverage for the node “domestic labour” appears in the interview with F (13.13%) and with R
(9.11%). According to F she gets involved in all the works she is able to do because she
wants to help her mother. Her mother is working as a hairstylist and is busy all day long.
Therefore, considers that cleaning the house, taking care of her sister, giving food to animals
are her responsibilities and she is interested in organizing her schedule so as to able to help
her mother. Asked how she would feel if she has no work, F answered that she would feel
bored if she has nothing to do. At the same time, she admits that she realizes these types of
works because these works need to be done. During school time, F said that she “helps her
mother with working only after doing her homework and studying.

“(F) Nu prea că e plictisitor așa. Când ai treabă …într-o zi mături, într-o zi dacă vreau șterg masa

37. Da îți place să mături, să faci curățenie, să ștergi masa?

(F)Da. Nu pot să spun că-i o obligație. Fac asta pentru că știu că trebuie să fac curățenie în cameră, în casă.” F

(F- I don‟t like so much because it is boring when you have nothing to do. When you have some work
to do...one day you broom the floor, one day if I want I clean the table.

45 | P a g e
37. But do you like to broom the floor, do the cleaning, neat the table? F- Yes. I cannot say that this is
an obligation. I do this because I know that I have to clean my room, the house. Personal translation
after F‟s interview, Girl, 13)

For R, some work may become a pleasant activity, a way of relaxation. Thus, during the
interview R affirmed that most of all she likes cleaning the floor because then she may dance.
R asserted that she is realizing domestic tasks for about three hours per day.

“36. Poți să îmi spui ce îți place să faci din tot ce faci?

(R) Păi, cu curățenia. Să dau cu mopul.

37. Aia îți place?

(R) Da. Păi când dau cu mopul mai și dansez și atunci îmi place (râde)” R

(36. May you tell me what do you like to do from all the works that you got engaged in? R- Well,
with cleaning. To wash the floor.

37. Why do you like that? R-Yes, I like it. Well, while I wash the floor I dance and then I like it.
Laughing. Personal translation after R‟s interview, girl, 12)

The coverage of domestic labour node shows that there is a gender division of labour in the
communities from rural areas. Even if all children declared that they get involved in some household
activities, the content from girls interview had significantly higher coverage as related to domestic
labour. In the case of boys, the highest coverage of domestic labour works was noticed at S, who
declared that he is doing this work in order to help his mother. S‟s parents work all day long in the
market, selling fruits and vegetables. Asked if he likes to help his parents, S stated that he likes doing
this kind of work because he is thinking about his parents:

“îmi place pentru că mă gândesc mult la ei, adică lucrează pentru mine și să am condiții și mă gândesc că ei merg dimineața
și vin seara. De multe ori, nu neapărat să îi ajut cu lucrul, cu munca lor, îi ajut cu treburile prin casă pentru că mă gândesc la
mami, în principiu. Că vine de la lucru obosită și vrea, poate, să se relaxeze. Și nu vreau să facă curat și de-astea pentru că e
obosită și atunci fac eu curat pe când vine ea. » S

(I like it because when I am thinking a lot about them (parent), I mean they work for me and to ensure
that I have good conditions and I am thinking that they go at the work at morning and they come back
in the evening. Most of the times I do not necessarily help them with work, with their work, I mostly
help them with household chores because I am thinking about my mother, basically. I am thinking
that she is tired after working so much and maybe when she gets home she wants to sit and relax for
some moments. And I do not want her to do the cleaning and this kind of chores because she is tired
and then I do the cleaning before she is coming home. Personal translation after S‟s interview, boy,
12)

In spite of the fact that researchers‟ state that children from rural areas are mostly engaged into
agricultural activities, the coverage of “agriculture” node was significantly lower than for domestic
labour. Most of the references and the highest coverage were noticed in the interviews of D (22
references-6.05%) and A (16 references-4.79%). For D, taking part at agricultural activities is a
common practice in the summer holiday, the child saying that a normal summer day begins with
asking his gradparents if there is a work he can get involved into. In addition, D declared that he

46 | P a g e
would help with agricultural work every person that demands it and that he felt proud whenever his
work was appreciated.

“56. Dar s-a întâmplat, de exemplu, să ajuţi pe altcineva în afară de pe bunicul ?

D : Da. Şi pe unchiu. La orice. Mă refer la agricultură

57. Şi dacă-i vorba la agricultură, când ajuţi la agricultură, îi ajuţi numai pe membri familiei ?

D : Nu. Dacă îi nevoie, ajut pe oricine.

58. Da dacă îi ajuţi, îţi dau ceva în schimb persoanele pe care le-ai ajutat ?

D : Câteodată. Dacă vreau eu să ieu. « D

(56. For example, did it happen that you help someone else than your grandfather? D- Yes. I also help
my uncle.In any kind of work. I refer to agriculture.

57. When you work in agriculture do you help only the members of your family? D- No. If there is
needed, I help whoever asks me to.

58. But if you help them, do they offer something else for you in return? D- Sometimes. Only if I
want to. Personal translation after D‟s interview, boy, 12)

In the summer, the agricultural work lasts more than half a day and children perceive their
participation from an impersonal point of view, addressing to work as “something that has to
be done”. Even if they are twelve or thirteen years old, the interviewed boys from the rural
community and a girl (R) were driving tractors.

Apart from work in agriculture and domestic work, children referred to work in other
contexts. This node is better covered in the interviews from S and R. S has a more complex
understanding of the notion of work, stating that playing music and creating a youtube video
may also be regarded as forms of work. Hence, S classifies as work both paid and unpaid
activities‟, stating that a main characteristic of work is that it is useful. In this sense, S
explains why he claims that creating a video content for a youtube video has to be regarded
as work:

“E o muncă pentru că dacă ai folosi-o să te joci...de exemplu sunt anumiți oameni care câștigă din această
chestie cu tehnologia. Creează anumite programe și aia e o muncă. E, cu canalul de youtube, e o muncă pentru
că e filmatul, e editatul. Era când lăsam o chestie mică mică la capăt, ștergeam videoclipul și îl postam din nou.
E o muncă pentru că petreci timpul acolo ca să faci un conținut, ca oamenii să îți acceseze conținutul. Tu, ca
youtuber, de exemplu, trebuie să faci un clip în așa fel încât oamenii să nu se plictisească, să îi ții tot timpul cu
informație.” S

(It is a work because if you use it to play... for example, certain people earn money from working in
this field, from modern technology. They create programmes and that is a work, With my youtube
channel, I say that it is a work because there is filming and editing. There were times when I let some
really small stuff to the end of it and then I had to delete the video and to post it again. It is a work
because you spend most of the time there to create content so as people access your posts. As a
youtuber, for example, you have to create a video in such a way that people do not feel bored and you
give them all the time new information. Personal translation after S‟s interview, boy, 12)

47 | P a g e
For better assessing how work is seen by children, I realised a query of the word „munca” in
the work node. The query shows words that children employed while talking about work.
„Money”, „paid”, „depends”, „appreciate”, „useful” are some of the words revealed by it.

Figure 6: Munca (Work) in „work” node

A main topic that is prevalent in children‟s interviews is family. Thus, while talking about
their working activities, children relate to parents, brothers and grandparents. The highest
coverage of the references in the “family” node was registered at F‟s, R‟s and A‟s interview.
A specific attention I showed to A‟s interview. A‟s father is working abroad since A has been
little. Therefore, A internalized his feelings for family and he is distant while communicating
about himself. Moreover, A declared that his father did not always appreciate his work, but
he got used to it (created a certain resistance when people consider him as “lazy”). In this
respect, A feels his work undervalued.

“66. Poți să îmi spui cum văd părinții tăi munca ta? Mama ta cum vede?

Păi...apreciază că o ajut, doar că …nu știu.

67. Da se bazează că o ajuți?

Da. (spune mândru de sine)

68. Nu e ceva de genu vrei? Nu vrei?

Nu. vrei, nu vrei, faci. E bine să faci.

69. Și tatăl tău?

Păi și el. Când

…Bravo! Bravo (râde) Era și timpul să (râde)

72. Era și timpul? În ce sens? Te consideră mai leneș uneori?

Câteodată. “ A.

(66. May you tell me how your parents see your work? Let‟s begin with your mother. How does she
perceives your work? A- Well, she appreciates that I help her...just that..I don‟t know.

67. Does she rely on your help? A- Yes (answers proudly)

48 | P a g e
68. Is it something like: do you want to help me? A- No. Mostly it is like: either you want or you
don‟t want to do, you do. It is good for you to do it.

69. And your father? A- My father as well. When he asks about he says to me...very good! Very
good! (laughing) It was about time to do it (laughing)

...72. It was about time? What does this mean? Do you think that he considers that you do not do the
works on time, that you are sort of lazy sometimes?

Yes. Sometimes. Personal translation after A‟s interview, boy, 13)

Other dimensions that I consider essential for this analysis are the nodes „helping”, „identity”
and „marginalization”. All the analysed interviews contained reference to these nodes. For
the „identity” node, the highest coverage appeared in the answers of S (12-9.43%) and most
of the references to D (29-6.72%). The identity node relates to the way children perceive
themselves and value their work. Identity may also signal agency, as in the case as shown in
the excerpt when he is talking that not all people know him so well and that‟s the reason why
he is not touched by offences. More than that, identity may be linked to empowerment, like
D‟s interview may render. Although D is more internalized and does not feel at ease
describing his feelings, he frequently relates to aspects that he is proud with (example:
helping his parents, working in agriculture, lending money to his sister when she demands
some, buying useful objects). Other concept that children refer to while talking about work is
“help”. As the conducted interviews may show, children do not value their activities they do
as work, but rather they perceive them as less signifying: “helping”. A highest coverage of
“helping” is found in the interview with F who appreciates that helping her mother is normal
and perceives it as a priority. Consequently, F consider as normal if her mother asks for her
help in a demanding way. The conducted interviews also showed that there are specific
situations in which people are more vulnerable to victimization. In this sense, I designed a
query which show the risk of marginalization. This risk was rendered by challenging children
to answer some questions related to the consequences that work refusal may have.

“Ție ți s-a întâmplat să auzi un adult strigând la un copil că muncește sau că nu muncește?

mmm...nu. Mie mi se mi întâmplă când de exemplu stau și eu un pic poate un minut la televizor și vine mama și ea crede că am stat o oră
poate la televizor și n-am făcut treaba pe care mi-a dat-o. Și mi se pare normal că ea are nevoie de ajutor cum îi în criză de timp și tot felul
de lucruri de-astea.

90. Ce se întâmplă dacă nu vrei să lucrezi într-o zi? Te ceartă mama?

MMM...depinde și de situație. Dacă chiar am altceva în afară de asta mai important de făcut zice ori să termin cât de repede pot dacă are
neapărat nevoie de mine, dar dacă nu are atâta nevoie de mine, mă lasă să mă duc să fac ce am de făcut. » F

(89. Did it happen to you to hear an adult screaming at a child because he is working or not working?
F- MMM...no. Sometimes it happens to me that I spend a few time, maybe only a minute watching
TV and my mother is coming and she thinks that I watched TV for over an hour and I didn‟s complete
the tasks. And it seems normal to me because she needs help as she is in a constant struggle against
time and all this kind of things.

90. What does it happen if you do not want to work one day? Is your mother quarelling with you? F-
MMM...it depends on the circumstances. If I really have something more important to do apart from

49 | P a g e
this she either says to finish it as fast a I could if she needs me so much, but if she does not need me
that much, she lets me finish what I have to do. Personal translation after F‟s interview, girl, 13)

Figure No 7: The Risk of Marginalization

The topic of marginalization was mostly present in the excerpts from the interviews of R, S
and C and was connected to attitudes at school (R), on the Internet and taking part at a contest
(S), or in family (C).
“Ți s-a întâmplat vreodată ca cineva să râdă de tine sau să te jignească atunci când muncești?

S Da. Adică pe youtube comentariile urâte și...

Și cum le vezi tu? Cum te afectează?

S Le...nu mă afectează pentru că ei nu mă cunosc personal, cum sunt prietenii mei și îi spun...am avut comentarii
care mi-au spus că sunt în toate felurile, dar ei nu mă cunosc. Și știu că ei nu au dreptate...nu au de unde să știe cum
sunt eu în viața reală. Adică, nu sunt diferit față de youtube, sunt același. Și nu neapărat pe youtube. Pe internet “ S

(Did it happen to you that someone laughs about you or insults you while you were working? S- Yes.
I mean, on youtube, the bad comments and...

And how do you see them? How do they affect you? S- I ... they do not affect me because they do not
know me. I mean, they do not know me as my friends do and I tell...I had comments that told that I
am in all kinds, but they do not know me. And I know that they are not rights...they do not have any
idea about how am I in real life. I mean...I am not different from the one from youtube. I am the same,
And not necessarily on youtube. On the Internet. Personal translation after S‟s interview, boy, 12)

Acasă, nu. La școală, de exemplu, s-a întâmplat. S-a întâmplat odată să fiu de serviciu și era mizerie prin clasă pentru că ne
...ne-am îmbrâncit..în fine și am adus mopul și am vrut să dau eu cu mătura și unii colegi mi-au zis...ioi ...chiar așa de rău ai
ajuns, tu ești menajeră? M-am supărat foarte tare. . » R

50 | P a g e
(At home, no. For example, it happened at school. Once I was on duty and the classroom was messy
because we...we had some small fights, basically...and I brought the swob and I wanted to broom the
floor and some of my colleagues told me: Oh, my gosh!...did you end up so badly, are you a servant? I
got really upset. Personal translation after R‟s interview, girl, 12)

Bine. Pot să te întreb: s-a întâmplat ca cineva să râdă de tine sau să strige la tine sau să te jignească din cauză că muncești?

C : Nu.

Dar din cauză că nu muncești?

C Asta da.

Cine? Familia? Sau cine?

C: Da.

Cum te-ai simțit ?

C Bine.

(Ok. May I ask you if it happened that somebody teased you, scream at you or offend you because
you were working? C- No.

But because you were not working? C- This happened. Yes.

Who? Family members? Or who? C- Yes.

How did you feel? C- Fine. Personal translation after C‟s interview, boy, 12)

The presented examples show children‟s tendency to internalise what they feel and to answer
based on what they believe is the desirabilitty of the person that asks them. Considering this
fact, there is a high possibility that children‟s answers‟ did not reflect what they feel in all
cases.

Case studies: how work is reflected by children

Based on the Memo‟s that I drafted while coding the interviews and I further developed
during the query, I attempted to explore the main characteristics of each child that took part
in the interview. This phase was meant to hint on the differences that may appear between
what children declared and what they feel.

1. A

A is a boy of 13 years old from Preoteasa. His father has been working at a slaughter
house in Italy for 8 years. His mother is a house-keeper. He doesn‟t have brothers or
sisters. When he was young, he felt the absence of his father; now he is indifferent.
However, he considers that it is better if his father returns home. He works in the field
together with his family, in particularly with his grandfather. He is not paid for the
agricultural work and he does not expect to be paid. He has been driving the tractor
since he was 10 or 11 years old. A also declares that there are moments when he
51 | P a g e
helps his mother in the housework, particularly when she has a lot of work and
request his aid. When he was asked how he would spend his free time, A said that
he would go to cafes and pubs together with his friends from several cities in order
to find a job. A recognizes that his work schedule is imposed by his parents and
affirms that he usually respects it, but there are some moments when he does not
respect it. Still, his parents do not observe this deviation. A affirms that he is very angry
when he doesn‟t want to do something, but he neglects his anger and continues his
work. A also recognizes that his father considers him “lazy”, but he is not teased.
When he is obliged, he works even if he feels tired. In A‟s opinion, it is very important
for a child to work, because work prepares him for future and considers that a child
can be involved in agricultural work. A has been going to school since an earlier
age and wants to continue his school studies in order to choose the domain he wants
and only after that to take a job. A does not want to combine the present work
(probably, agriculture) with school. For A, the most important thing is to be prepared
in life.

2. Adr

Adr. is a girl of 12 years old, “a little bit timid and scared” (seemed as such during
the interview). She is a pupil of 7th grade from Preoteasa school and has a little
brother of 10 years old. Her mother and her grandmother do housework: work in the
family garden, plant breeding and livestock growing. Her father is a manager. Adr has
learnt to prepare food since she was in the 4th grade. She is very close to her mother.
She also feeds the animals and cleans the house (sweeps up, wipes the dust, washes
the dishes, arranges the table). She likes both housework and school. In the summer
holidays, she usually wakes up at 9 o‟clock. In a common day, she plays computer
games, meet her friends and after that she helps her mother in the housework. During
summer months, she works in the field together with her family and she likes it.
(Observation: Adr. is a type of person who probably offers answers in a concordance
with what she thinks that the speaker wants to hear). At the same time, she mentions
that she works in the field even when it is hot and uncomfortable. In Adr‟s family,
work is gendered: she is not allowed to bind vine or haymaking; she goes only to
potatoes and corn harvesting. Adr. declares that she thinks many times that her nails
cannot be clean due to the agricultural work, but she is not disturbed by this aspect (Adr
seems very preoccupied by her look). When she does not like the work in which she
is involved, Adr confesses to her parents and she abandons it. In this case, her
parents are upset and perceive her as being “lazy”. Adr describes her ideal day in
the manner of eating, playing and shopping. She does not know how it can be if she
does not help her mother; as she has never taken it into discussion. When she was
asked if she would like such day, she declared that it would be boring. In Adr.‟s
opinion, teachers are not preoccupied with child work in the household; they are
interested only in learning and homework. Adr. feels very responsible for her school
52 | P a g e
marks and that‟s why she does her homework regularly. When she was asked if
school activity could be placed in the job field, she answered school would be an
easier work. Adr declares that homework is usually too long. She also mentions that her
classmates have the same opinion. She usually express her dissatisfaction in the presence
of her parents, but she never talks about with the teachers. Adr. recognizes that
sometimes the boys mock her when she works. In her view, a girl works more than
a boy and argues her answers by mentioning that her brother has a simpler schedule.
She sustains that it is better for a child to work. A child can take care of his younger
relatives and help his parents in housework and agriculture. Although she considers
that not all the school information is appropriate for her, she wants to focus on
learning. The other skills can be obtained after she finishes her studies.

3. C

C is a determined boy of 12 years old, whose father works on a farm in Italy and
whose mother is a technician in Nuşfalău ( at 38 km distance). He also lives in
Preoteasa has an elder brother, who has five years more and is also at school. He
refuses to answer on the questions regarding work (what is his opinion about work,
what does work means, if it is important for him to work); he affirms only that work
is very important for his parents because it offers the necessary supplies. In C‟s
opinion, work is a kind of mutual help. He says that he does not work; he feels the
animals (the poultry, the cow and the dog), helps his mother in the household and
drives the tractor. During the summer, he is working in the field. Although he perceives
agricultural work as an easy activity, he declares that he does not like to work all the
year. He considers that work implies payment and ha states that it is very important to
obtain material benefits for what he does. However, he does not request money for
family help and field work. He affirms that his classmates work and he is very
convinced that all of them help their parents. It is normally for a child to help his parents,
C pointed. C feels appreciated when his family say that he is diligent. He is very angry
when somebody insult him or make him lazy when doesn‟t work. He has never
observed situations when somebody is mocked because he is working; he remembers
only the contrary. In C‟s opinion, a child can work in the field, but not
exaggeratedly. The ideal time is for 8 o‟clock to noon. The work should not be done every
day. He considers that it is perfectly normal for a child to wake up early, because he
does. He does not accept parental violence, but he does not interfere when a classmate
is insulted or beaten by relatives, as he claims that in this kind of situation that person has
to handle it. In addition, C affirms that school is very important for him, he likes school
and wants to become a policeman.

4. D

D is a 12 year-old boy from Preoteasa who has an elder sister. His parents work in a
firm from Nuşfalșu. During summer, he works in the field. Moreover, he takes particular
lessons of keyboard music in Zalău. When he is at home, he helps his grandmother to
53 | P a g e
feed the livestock, he helps his family on cleaning and he works with his grandfather
at hay-making and wood-cutting. Sometimes, he does agricultural works for other
people who ask for his help and he‟s paid for it. In that case, he works the whole day.
He appreciates that he gets approximately the pay of an adult. Although it is not
normal for a child to drive the tractor, he loves this activity very much. When he is
asked why does he like this, he declares that he prefers to be responsible and
independent. D states that he would be bored if he had no activity. He thinks that his work
offers him an advantage in the future, particularly if he chooses a domain in which
he can apply the abilities he learnt. His parents are very proud of him and appreciate
his work. This makes him extremely happy. Work seems to him a normal thing and this
opinion applies also to payment. He either gives his payment to his sister, even she
demands it, or buys whatever he wants. Of course, the latter decision is taken after
the parents‟ consent. He observes that his classmates work too. In the case when
somebody mocks him when he works, he stops the activity and tries to see what is
the problem and find a solution. The same attitude has also in the moment when he
feels tired. It has never happened to him to be insulted when he works. D places firstly his
help for his parents and only then his own preoccupations. Both school and work are
important for him. However, school is better, claims D. concerning his plans for the future,
D says that he wants to become an engineer and to play the keyboard at parties and
weddings.

5. F

F is a girl of 13 years old from Valcău de Jos, who suffered some health problems
in the past, but overpassed them with the aid of music (takes particular lessons).
However, some reminiscences remained and still influence her self-confidence. F has a
little sister and loves me very much to contemplate her father‟s work. She has a
gendered perception of work. Thus, she is preoccupied only in what she considers as
being “girl work”, namely helping her mother in the household, cleaning, preparing
food and taking care of her sister. She considers her activity of helping her mother
as a duty and talks about a gradual enhancement of responsibilities. She associates
work with difficulty and does not include household activities in it. She never tells her
mother when she is tired and stops only when she finishes her work. She has the
ambition to demonstrate that she can organize her schedule in order to do whatever
she wants. However, she admits that she does not have too much time for leisure,
exception when she works together with a classmate. In F‟s opinion, the teachers
perceived housework as something normal and thinks that her colleagues embrace the
same view. They act like her and help their parents. The only dissatisfaction is offered
by the fact that vacation homework is too long and affect her work schedule. She
does not admit hard work for persons under 17 years.

6. R

54 | P a g e
R is a 12 years old girl from Preoteasa, whose father works in a farm in Italy. R lives
together not only with her parents, as the majority of children mentioned already, but
also with her grandparents. She has a younger brother of 7 years old. She helps her
parents. She works together with her mother at housework, takes care of her brother
and aided her father ( before he left Romania) in the agriculture. She drives the
tractor, prepares food feeds the livestock and brings wood. She learnt how to drive the
tractor at her father‟s request. At first, it seemed very difficult for her to achieve it but later it
became easier. She loves very much to make cleaning and perceive this as a moment
of relaxation ( it induces the sensation of dancing). She estimates that housework means
minimum three hours per day. She declares that she would choose a day for getting up
late and having no responsibility. R is intrigued by the fact she has too much
homework and tells that she talks to her main teacher about this issue, but the
teacher has not showed too much interest. Nevertheless, she was not punished when
she sacrificed her homework in order to help her parents. She feels that sometimes
she cannot do what she proposed, but she does not know how to express it, because
she fears that the parents do not understand her. Moreover, she mentions a situation in
which her classmates insulted her because she worked. It was during a school-class
cleaning. She realises that her parents have too many expectations from her. They are
frequently upset when she obtains bad results at school.

7. S

S is a 13 year-old boy from Zalău, who has some health problems and is obliged to
go to a medical control every month. However, he does not mention them during the
interview ( the researcher knows about them from other sources). Instead, he has a
very strong sense of self-confidence and that is the main reason why he does not
have a clear perception of work. The activities which are usually included in the field
of “work” are described by him as “ pleasures”. In this way, he organizes his
schedule in four directions: to help his parents, school activities, YouTube blogging
and music. It should be mentioned that he has his own YouTube channel ( where he
mixes several Romanian songs, particularly “manele”) , takes lessons of keyboard
playing and has his own musical band (together with other boys of similar age) that
performs at parties and weddings. S likes very much to be appreciated and his life
seems to gravitate under music. His motivation includes both sentimental attachment and
financial reasons. These motives are bound with a typical desire of self-identity,
which makes him to suffer apparently no deceptions.

Analysing children‟s features contributed to understanding how work is perceived by

children. Nevertheless, the interview has as a main limitation researchers‟ bias, fact that may
determine that children answered the questions so as to satisfy the researcher, being mostly
what they thought the researcher wants to know. Consequently, as a second phase of analysis,
I applied a survey which was based on the same questions provided by the interview guide. It
represented a control phase, attempting to explore which types of activities children consider
as work and their position in relation to main actors that influence them (parents, teachers,
55 | P a g e
and friends). Considering that a survey requires a certain understanding of the phenomenon, I
decided to apply this survey at older children. In the case of older children, they are most
likely to have their own conceptions and develop their critical thinking; facts that allow them
interrogate concepts and create their own views in relation to matters that concern them.

The survey
A survey represents a quantitative method of research in which subjects respond to a series of
statements or questions. The method is used for studying a sample. In the present study the
survey involves questionnaries, which are both closed-ended and open-ended. The applied
survey is composed of 20 questions, out of which 12 have are close-ended. The closed-ended
questions. The first question related to the age and location of the child. Consequently, it was
included together with the open questions in a table imported in NVIVO 11.

This survey was applied to 31 children from 9th and 10th grade from the Orthodox
Highschool from Zalău. The learning institution was chosen due to the fact that it has a
school campus building. In this institution are enrolled children from both the urban and rural
area. The chosen sample included 11 children from urban areas (9 from Zalău, 1 from Cehu
Silvaniei and one from Șimleu Silvaniei) and 20 from rural areas, out of which 18 are from
Sălaj County. The other two belong to villages from Satu Mare county (a girl from 10th
grade) and Vaslui county (a girl from 9th grade) and are living in the campus building of the
highschool. From the 18 children that live in rural areas in Sălaj, 6 have their residence in
smaller villages (Chichișa, Cerișa, Chendrea, Vădurele, Subcetate) and the rest are living in
big villages. Related to the gender distribution, the questionnaire was applied to 19 boys (9
boys in 9th grade;10 boys in 10 th grade) and 12 girls (4 girls in 9th grade and 8 girls in
10th). The gender distribution mirrors the specificity of the highschool, as most of the
children that choose this institution want to become priests. In the case of girls, the
highschool prepares them for a career in social work.

As I mentioned previously, the open-ended questions of the survey were included in NVIVO
Program. Therefore, I split the survey in two pieces.

The first close-ended question consisted of : „Is it important for you to work?”

The majority of children (25) answered that work is important, while one answered No and
other 5 gave other answers: “doar pentru că faci bani” (just because you make money), “poți
ajunge ceva în viață” (you can become someone in your life0, “ar fi important dacă aș fi plătit
pe măsură” (it will be important for me if I am paid honestly), “este importantă pentru mine”
(it is important for me), “nu este important în prezent că mă finanțează părinții” (it is not
important at present because my parents finance me).

56 | P a g e
The answers show that more than 80% percent of the children that participated to the survey
considered that work is important for them. Related to gender distribution, all girls declared
that it is important for them to work, while 6 boys gave the other answers.

The second close-ended was based on an answer to an open-ended question and evaluates if
the child likes the activity that he/she does.

From the total number of children, 20 children (9 boys and 11 girls) said yes, 1 child said no
(a boy) and 9 children gave another answer (1 girl and 9 boys): “nu mereu” (not always) (the
girl), “da, îmi place să mă joc pe calculator” (yes, I like to play on the computer), “îmi place
foarte mult” (I like very much), “da, pentru că vreau să pot” (yes, because I want to be able to
do it) , “îmi place ceea ce fac” (I like what I do), “chiar îmi place ceea ce fac” (I really like
what I do), “nu îmi place ceea ce fac” (I don‟t like what I do), “așa și așa” (so and so), “nu
neapărat” (not necessarily), “muncesc că e foarte important” (I work because is very
important).

The answers show that the children that participated to the survey had different answers
whether they like to do the works or not, fact emphasized in the chart. The answers may be
influenced by a variety of factors, including: the activities they are engaged into, the
conditions, the attitude of family and community.

57 | P a g e
.

The next question challenges to child to answer if he/she would like to realise other activities.
Asked if they would like to do some other activities in return, the children provided different
answer. Thus, out of 31, 8 children answered yes (4 boys-21,05% of the total number of boys;
4 girls-33.33% of the total number of girls), 14 answered No (7 boys-36.84% of the total
number of boys; 7 girls-58.33% of the total number of girls); 8 children answered something
else (7 boys-36.84%; 1 girl -8.33%): “depinde” (“girl”) (it depends), “dacă s-ar putea, aș face
altceva în schimb” (if I could, I would do something else in return), “dacă ar fi ceva nou”
(only if it is something new), “poate” (maybe), “mi-ar plăcea un sport extrem”(I would do an
extreme sport), “comsi-comsa” (so so), “câteodată” (sometimes), “mai rar doresc altceva”,
(rarely I want something else) “știu să prețuiesc banii”( I know how to price value money).
The answers showed that children are rather satisfied with the activities they do, but
sometimes they would like a change in their schedule.

58 | P a g e
The question No 12 is “Do the teachers from your school agree that you are working?” From
the total number of 31 children, 15 said yes (8 boys-42.1% of the total number of boys; 7
girls-58.33% of the total number of girls), 1 boy said no (5.26% of the total number of boys)
and 10 had other answer (10 boys- 52.63% of the total number of boys; 5 girls-41.66% of the
total number of girls): “nu am idee” (I have no idea) , “păi că nu prea învăț și susțin că” (well
I don‟t learn so often and they consider that), “aproximativ” (approximately), “nu știu că
muncesc. Dacă ar ști, ar fi de acord” (They don‟t know that I work. If they know, they will
agree.), “de acord până la un anumit punct” (They agree to a certain point), “nu știu” (they
don‟t know), “nu știu” (they don‟t know), “nu știu că eu muncesc” (they don‟t know that I
work), “da, ei nu știu” (yes, they don‟t know), “nu știu” (they don‟t know) (boys); „nu știu”
(they don‟t know), “nu știu” (they don‟t know), “nu știu” (they don‟t know), “depinde” (it
depends). The answer to question No 12 suggest that most of the children that took part in the
survey are working.

The Question No. 13 deals with the way children perceive their colleagues, which was in the
beginning an open question, but children provided answers as if it was a closed one. From the
total number of children (31) 9 children answered yes (4 boys-21.05% of the total number of
boys and 5 girls- 41.66% of the total number of girls), no child anwered no and 22 children
provided other answer (15 boys-78.94 %; 7 girls-58.33%): “treaba lor ce fac” (it is their
bussiness what they do), “treaba lor” (it is their business), “treaba lor, mi-e indiferent” (I
don‟t care, it is their bussiness), “și colegii mei muncesc, fiecare câte puțin sau mai mult”
(my colleagues work as well, each of them a little or more), “treaba lor, nu-i interesează” (it
is their bussiness, they don‟t care), “colegii mei nu sunt interesați” (my colleagues are not
interested), “păi nu știu că nu sunt în sat/oraș cu ei” (well I don‟t know because I am not in
the same village/city with them), “treaba lor” (it is their own business), “le place activitatea
mea” (they like my activity), “da și colegii mei muncesc” (my colleagues work as well), “da,
alții culeg ciuperci” (yes, others pick mushrooms), “muncim în echipă” (we work in a team),

59 | P a g e
“unii doar sunt invidioși” (some are just envious), “nu știu că eu muncesc” (they don‟t know
that I am working), “da, mă laudă” (yes, they admire me) (boys), “unii” (some of them), “unii
da, unii văd ca pe o obligație” (Yes, some. The others see it as an obligation), “nu toți au
conceptul muncii” (not all have the concept of work), “indiferent” (it is indifferent to me),
“muncesc unii, de acord” (some of them work, I agree with it), “indiferent” (it is indifferent
to me). The answers indicate that surveyed children are not interested about the working
activities of their colleagues, fact that may show that they see working as connected to family
andthat they may internalize working.

In the question No 14 children are asked about situations of vulnerability and abuse: “Did it
happen that someone yelled at you, laughed or offended you while you were working?”
According to the answers 3 out of 31 children affirmed that they were offended or someone
yelled at them or laughed about them while they were working (2 boys-10.52% and 1 girl-
8.33%), the majority of children answered no (25: 15 boys-78.94 of the total number of boys
%; 11 girls-83.33% of the total number of girls) and 3 children (2 boys-10.52% and 1 girl-
8.33%) provided other answers: “adică nu-i bag în seamă” ( I mean, I don‟t take them into
consideration) (girl), “doar pentru că sunt proști care stau pe banii părinților” (just because
there are stupid people that live on their parents‟ money), “mi s-a întâmplat odată că acea
persoană mi-a spus că sunt prost că muncesc” (once it happened to me that that person told
me that I am stupid because I work). The answers provided by children show that
marginalization is a risk factor that may appear when children are working, but is not
representative for the reality of children that are engaged into household work or other
economic activities that are not seen as exploitative. As it is a survey, I could not ask for
further details for the children that were victims of marginalization while working.

60 | P a g e
The Question 15 is : “Did it happen to you that someone forced you to work when you were
tired?”. This is the second question of the survey that signals the phenomenon of
marginalization. From the sample of 31 children 3 children (1 boy-5.26% of the total number
of boys; 2 girls-16.6% of the total number of girls) answered yes, 24 children answered No
(16 boys-84.21%; girls 8-66,6% of the total number of girls) and 4 children provided
different answer (2 boys-10.52%; 2 girls-16.6%): “profesorii sunt de acord” (the teachers
agree), “nu chiar” (not really) (girls), “câteodată” (sometimes) , “nu sunt obosit niciodată” (I
am never tired). The answers show that the majority of children were not obliged to work
when they were tired. Still, there are cases when they are obliged to work when they are tired,
being probably involved into unpaid domestic activities or agriculture.

The Question no 16 refers to children‟s image about childhood. Hence, they are asked if it is
beneficial for a child to work. From the total number of children, 17 children said yes (8
61 | P a g e
boys-42.1% and 9 girls-75%), any child said no and 12 children provided other answers (9
boys-47.36%, 3 girls-25%): “îl ajută să fie harnic în viață” (it helps one to be laborious in
life), “da, îl ajută să știe cum să facă banii” (yes, it helps one to know how to make money),
“da, îl ajută la maturitate” (yes, it helps one when he is grown up), “da, îl ajută foarte mult pe
viitor” (yes, it helps one a lot in the future), “da, îl ajută în formarea lui” (yes, it helps one for
molding his character), “la vârsta mea, nu prea” (at my age, not really), “o muncă ușoară” (it
is an easy work), “da, cunoaște greutățile” (yes, he knows the hardships), „așa și așa” (so and
so) (boys), “uneori” (sometimes), “da, în limitele posibilității ajută în formare” (yes, in the
the way one can it helps on one‟s formation), “mda..uneori” (yeah…sometimes).

Question No 17 is asking children if it happened for them to hear an adult yelling at a child
that he is working. Five children out of 31 did not give any answer to this question (boys), 13
children said yes (5 boys-35.71% of the boys that answered the question; 8 girls-66,6% of the
girls), 15 children said no (9 boys-64.28%; 6 girls-33.3%).The answers provided show that an
adult yelling while the child is working is not an isolated case, girls being especially
vulnerable to this. There are also two children that did not provide any answer, fact that may
show that they were also victims of verbal violence while they were working. Boys also
reported cases of adults yelling at them while they were working.

62 | P a g e
Question No 18 personalizes the Question No 17, asking children if an adult yelled at them
because they were not working. From the total of 31 children, 2 boys provided no answers, 6
chidlren answered yes (3 boys- 17.64% of the boys that answered the question and 3 girls-
25% from the total number of girls), 14 children answered no (8 boys- 47.05% of the boys
that answered the question, 6 girls-50% of the total number of girls) and 9 children provided
other answers (6 boys -35.29% of the boys that answered this question and 3 girls-25% of the
total number of girls): “da pentru că mă jucam duminica și nu le plăcea” (yes because I was
playing on Sunday and they didn‟t like it), “a strigat la mine” (he yelled at me), “a strigat la
mine că stau degeaba” (he yelled at me because I was doing nothing), “de auzit, am auzit, dar
mie nu mi s-a întâmplat” (I cannot say that I didn‟t hear, but it never happened to me), “a
strigat la mine că nu muncesc” (he yelled at me that I didn‟t work), “ambele” (both) (boys),
“a strigat mama că nu fac nimic toată ziua” (my mother yelled that I don‟t do anything all day
long), “câteodată a strigat la mine să fac ceva” (sometimes she yelled at me that I should do
something), “mi-a făcut observație că stau” (she reproached me that I just sit) (girls).

63 | P a g e
Question No 19 explores why children may be tempted to perceive themselves as potential
victims of abusive behaviour from adults (yelling). Thus, it asks children to express their
opinion whether they may find themselves in situations when they are subject of
marginalization and leaves them space to give a justification to their answer:” Do you think
that these cases may happen to you? Why do you think so?”

From the 31 children, only 26 provided answer to this question, which means 83.87% (all the
girls and 14 boys). Concerning the answers, 17 children said yes (11 boys –78.57% from the
number of boys that answered the question; 6 girls-50% of the total number of girls), 5
children said no (14.28% from the number of boys that answered the question; 3 girls-25% of
the total number of girls) an 4 children answered differently (1 boy-7.14% of the total number
of boys that answered the question and 3 girls -25% of the number of girls): “mă ceartă
părinții” (my parents are quarelling with me) (boy), “mda, mă ceartă” (mm…yeah, they
quarrel with me), “nu se întâmplă nimic” (it doesn‟t happen anything), “mi-a făcut observație
că stau” (they told me that I just sit). The children‟s answers at question no 19 show that
children are aware of the power relations between them and adults and feel vulnerable in
relation to adults. As it may be observed from one of the other answers, children feel
vulnerable in relation to people that are familiar to them (in this particular case, with the
parents). Even if they are not victims of marginalization, children feel a high degree of
vulnerability in relation to it (there is a high chance that adults will chide or even slap them).

64 | P a g e
Question No 20 asks children to relate to their experience, challenging them to evaluate what
happens if they do not want to work: What happens if you do not feel like working one day?
Is someone quarrelling with you? From the total number of children that participated to the
survey (31), one boy provided no answer (5.26% of the total number of boys, respectively
3.22% of the total number of children), one girl answered yes (8.33% of the total number of
girls), 13 children said no (7 boys- 38.88% of the number of boys that answered the question;
6 girls- 50% of the total number of girls) and 16 children chose other answer (11 boys-
61.11% of the number of boys that answered the questions; 5 girls-41.66% of the total
number of girls): “nu se întâmplă nimic” (it does not happen anything), “nu, fac ce vreau”
(no, I do what I want), “da, că singur nu pot și trebuie să lucrez” (yes, because I cannot do it
alone and I have to work), “pentru mine este important să merg la școală” (for me it is
important to go to school), “probabil mă atenționează” (maybe they warn me), “dacă nu vreau
să muncesc, nu muncesc; că la vârsta mea nu sunt obligat că sunt minor” (if I don‟t want to
work, I don‟t work; because at my age I am not forced to work because I am under 18), “nu
se întâmplă nimic” (It doesn‟t happen anything), “nimic” (nothing), “nimic” (nothing),
“nimic” (nothing), “nimic” (nothing) (boys), “nimic” (nothing) , “nimic.nu se întâmplă”
(nothing. It doesn‟t happen), “nimic” (nothing), “nu se întâmplă nimic” (It doesn‟t happen
anything), “mă ceartă” (they quarrel with me). The answers provided showed that children
tend to perceive working as a decision they take by themselves, most of them appreciating
that nothing will happen to them if they do not work. Still, this answer may be rooted in
parents‟ and communities‟ attitude, as children may learn from the family that work is their
decision, although at the beginning they are encouraged to do so (this attitude I also signaled
in the collected interviews. Example: D).

65 | P a g e
The last question of the survey evaluated children‟s attitude concerning work and school.
Hence, a last question of the survey asked children to appreciate if education (school) or work
matters more for them. A last option consisted of placing both of them on the same level:
“What matters more for you? : school, work or both“ From the sample of 31 children, 14
children said “work” (8 boys-42.1 % from the total number of boys; 6 girls-50% from the
total number of girls), three boys said school (15.7% of the total number of boys, respectively
9.67% of the total number of children) and 14 children answered that they like “both”( 8
boys-42.1% from the total number of boys; 6 girls-50% of the total number of girls). The
provided answers show that work places a main role in children‟s lives. In the case of girls,
work is usually combined with schooling, fact that determines girls to place both as
important. For boys school and work are distinct. Still, the answers show that both are an
important part of their lives. The answers of the surveyed sample create a room for analyzing
the reproductive nature of work as seen by children. In this sense, children‟s options may be
explained taking into account the view that work allows one to acquire skills that will be
necessary in the future. The other questions of the survey, that challenged to express their
views were coded in seven nodes, each of them corresponding to the topic of the question,
respectively: “opinie părinți/frați/prieteni despre muncă” (the opinion of
parents/brothers/friends about work), “opinie muncă” (the opinion about work of the
surveyed person), “exemple munci” (example of tasks considered as work), “descriere
părinți/familie” (describing parents/family), “descriere o zi” (describing one day), “cum ar fi
dacă nu ai munci” (how it will be if you do not work), “activități” (activities) and the survey
respondents were included as “cases”. The next phase of the analysis will be coding the
information from the survey data in the nodes created for the interview analysis. In addition,
based on the answers will be established cathegories. Taking a grasp it may be seen that
although references coverage for each question is very small (0.46%), NVIVO 11 Program
allows exploring the differences in the way children regard a particular question. For
example, the answers provided by children when they were asked to name some works shows
66 | P a g e
a diverse range of activities that children get involved into: domestic work, watering the
plants, cleaning, studying, writing, feeding the livestock, carrying the water bucket, helping
parents, throwing the garbage, cooking, cutting the grass, feeding the animals, intellectual
work, singing as a Church Curator, lifting clothes bags in a truck, sweeping the floor, helping
my parents and the closed ones with what they need and what I can do, going to school,
agricultural work, washing the dishes, playing on the PC. Asked about the activities, the main
activities were: relaxing, studying, helping parents and family, listening to music, talking on
the phone and on Facebook , playing on the laptop, walking, sleeping, having fun, riding a
bicycle, walking, sleeping, staying in bed and staying. Asked how it would be if they did not
have to work, most of the children answered that it would be boring or they would not like it.
Still, one said that it would be wonderful, while other children said that they would have
more time to spend with friends. At the same time, some children connected lack of work to
being useless, not having enough money to live, feeling bad in relation to other people,
aspects that were also shown in the interviews. At the question about work, the answered
respondents perceived work a useful, necessary, a pleasant activity, something needed for
survival, income, efforts, money, benefit and a mean to get what you want. As main
cathegories, these aspects were also shown by the interviews. Still, in the interviews with D
and S, work was seen empowering, dimension that was not observed in the survey data. As
in the case of the interviews, the answers of the survey participants render that children talk
little about their work when they are asked what they do one day. From the 31 children, 7
mentioned while describing an ordinary day work. From those seven, only two said explicity
work: “dacă este nevoie muncesc” (I work if it is needed), “într-o zi am mers la fân” (one day
I went to the field), the others identifying it as a way of helping: “mai ajut prin casa” (I
sometimes home in my household), “ajut” (I help), “o ajut pe mama” (I help my mother),
“îmi ajut părinții” (I help my parents), “fac curat prin cameră” (I clean my room).

Asked about their families, most of the children say that they have a good relationship with
their families and indirectly shown their appreciation for them. Love, care, helping, generous,
calm are the main words used by children to talk about their families. Nevertheless, one girl
says that her father and her brother do not understand her “mama este cea mai de treabă, tata
este neînțelegător și fratele meu este enervant” (my mother is the nicest, my father is
intolerant and my brother is annoying), some of the children that took part at the survey
provided less information about their families, or provided only objective information, fact
that may show some tensions: “lucrează și sunt doi” (they work and they are two), “îs din
Zalău” (they are from Zalău), “locuiesc cu părinții. Tata este tâmplar, mama este casnică” (I
live with my parents. My father is a carpenter, my mother is working in the household.), etc.
This ipothesis is partially sustained for one of the respondents. Thus, the respondent that
answered „îs din Zalău” (they are from Zalău) also declared that his parents do not appreciate
his work “părinții îmi văd munca una nașpa” (my parents see my work as useless). Same
situation is observed for the participant that answered “lucrează și sunt doi” (they work and
they are two) that answered at the question how parents/brothers/ friends see your work with
very hard (“foarte greu”). Also, in the case of the girl that declared “mama este cea mai de
treabă, tata este neînțelegător și fratele meu enervant” (my mother is the nicest, my father is
67 | P a g e
intolerant and my brother is annoying) the answer about the opinion that her family has
regarding her work was negative: a loss of time (“o pierdere de timp”).

At first sight, both the interviews and the survey unfold a relationship between family‟s
attitude about work and the working activities that children do. Still, this relation has to be
analyzed further on both from a qualitative point of view, which implies conducting research
from different group age that belong to diverse family backgrounds and through the aid of
quantitative methods of analysis in order to find correlations between different variables
(example: level of correlation between children‟s works and the way families perceive work,
familial relationships and the meaning children attach to their work, the meaning that children
attach to their work and the meaning families‟ attach to children‟s work). Nevertheless, this
research was not meant to establish these correlations, as the study was designed as
exploratory. Through this study, I hinted on exploring children‟s attitude about work by
challenging them to describe their activities and talk about their day to day life. In the future,
the research will be extended so as to observe more cases (based on a grounded theory
method of collection and analyzing the data, which centers on the phenomenon, rather than
on the person) and will operate on establishing relationships of dependence/ interdependence
between different variables.

Conclusion
The research focuses on children‟s engagement into economic activities in Romania. It places
in the field of childhood studies, a multi-disciplinary field that look at children‟s attitudes and
the meanings they convey to their lives. Whereas paternalistic approach and other scholars
might have seen children as passive, dependent or incomplete, the study aims to present them
as equal participants in society, differently competent to adults, but of interest for what they
are now, not only what they will become. Children‟s rights and the relationship between
parents‟ and children is a main point of analysis in this field. Moreover, the present paper
mirrors how the relationship between parents and children and parents‟ attitude concerning
children‟s work determines children to value their efforts and involvement.

At the same time, the study investigates how children perceive the activities they engage into
the reasons behind them. The discrepancies between child work as defined in the academic
field and by children‟s themselves represent an incipient point for this analysis. This analysis
portrays work both as paid and unpaid, centering upon the daily activities that children do and
the way they talk about them. Besides, most of the activities described in the study are not
included within the SNA production boundary, as they are types of reproductive work and
they are not regulated by any legislation. In addition, these types of activities are considered
by society to have a limited economic value and they are underestimated.

The attitudes regarding work are seen in this paper as conceptualized by main theorists, in
particular in Bourdillons‟ approach. According to the socio-cultural conception, childhood is
a social construction and it claims for valuing children‟s work. Bourdillon also associates
work with children‟s self-affirmation and self-confidence and asserts the need for studying

68 | P a g e
the meaning children attach to work. A main question that the present research aims to
answer is how children perceive work in relation to childhood. The interviewed children
agreed that children should benefit from a certain degree of protection. Thus, some children
perceived work from a formal point of view, saying that “work is what maybe does not stand
in children‟s capacities” and working activities that children have to do should not be
difficult. This does not mean that children should not “help” their parents with household
works, as domestic activities are basic and may be realized by every person. Children refer to
the danger of child exploitation through work, stating that a child should not work all day
long every day, but they also state that there is a difference between younger and elder
children with relation to the activities that they may be engaged into. Although some of the
children pointed that it is good for children to work from the early ages in some kind of
activities in order to assimilate basic skills, most of the children agreed that responsibility and
the engagement into work comes with age. Boys and girls differently perceive when a work is
not fit for children. While a girl said that agricultural activities are hard and should not be
assigned to children, the boys viewed agriculture as an easy work which fits even for younger
children. In addition, children hold that in spite of the fact that a child should help his parents;
a child should not be forced to do some kind of activity that he does not like or does not want
to do. The distinction between necessity and obligation of work needs to be furtherly
analyzed, as it may constitute a protective factor against children‟s exploitation. Still, in
practice, this distinction is sometimes blurry, as some children declare that they are not
obliged to do some kind of activities although the reality stands the contrary.

Moreover, the interviews conducted with children show that there is a difference between
what a particular child considers that a child should do and what that child assumes that
he/she should do. This discrepancy was observed in the case of D who answered that it is not
normal for 12 years old boys to drive a tractor, but he does it and he likes it. Also, R declared
that “children in general and the younger in particular should be free of any kind of priorities
of work and they have to like what they do, but she does not always like the activities she has
to do. Growing up is a main dimension, which children correlate to childhood; assuming that
it implies getting engaged into more working tasks.

The interviews also show that “helping their parents” is not perceived and valued by children
as work. Rather, it is seen as an activity they have to do, both taking into consideration their
attachment to family members and the society regulations “they should help their parents as
well‟, “these are some basic activities that each one should do”. Consequently, it may be hold
that most of children‟s activities, respectively helping are not seen by children‟s themselves
and by parents alike as important. Realizing domestic tasks is seen as normality and
sometimes children are insulted when they do not want to realize these activities. However,
asked about the reasons behind the engagement into this type of activities, children affirm
that it is their own decision and they are not persuaded by anyone to do this kind of works.
Work appears thus correlated to pleasure, decision-making, maturity and child‟s own identity.
The internalization of the decision to work was shown by associating the answer children
offered to the question “what happens if you do not want to work” to the information coded

69 | P a g e
in the identity node. Although children engage into working activities because they want they
confess that their refusal may upset their parents or determine their parents to call them as
“lazy”. For children that have their work appreciated by parents, engaging into economic
activities is a way of feeling appreciated and respected as the case of D may show. Apart
from domestic and agricultural works, children may also engage in artistic activities, may
develop different applications/websites/channels on the internet, sell products in the market,
or load and transport different goods.

Furthermore, the research analyses the differences between how children perceive work in
general and the work they do. Most of the answers show that children view work as
important, useful for one‟s survival both from a financial and a social point of view, essential
for accumulating experience, a means of getting what one‟s wants. In this sense, work is
mainly identified with paid work. As related to the types of activities that they do, children
mainly define these activities as “helping” and are viewed as activities that are not very hard,
are not time-consuming and have limited value. On this dimension most of the information
was provided by survey data, as, during interviews children approached superficially the way
they see their work. Thus, most of them said that parents thank them for their help, give them
money and appreciate the activities they do. While helping the parents in domestic labour is
evaluated by children not lasting than three hours per day and is mainly accomplished by
girls, working in agriculture does not have a fixed frame and is realized mainly by boys.
There is a gender division between the works that children do, fact that further marginalizes
the activities realized by girls, which strike as not so important. At the same time, in the case
of girls work is also a way of socialization (F is helped by her friends and relative to perform
the tasks), while for boys involvement in agricultural works is a sign of self-estimation (D
feels proud that he works and he is paid for his work).

The presence of work in children‟s daily lives does not exclude schooling, although in some
cases children name school as a “kind of work”. For the interviewed children, school had a
significant role in fulfilling their expectations and having a good life in the future, but most of
them did not totally exclude the value of work in their development.

Limitations
By illustrating children‟s attitudes regarding work in general and concerning the work they
do, the present research claims that children‟s efforts in relation to work need to be valued in
society. Still, the paper presents various limits on what concerns the number of analysed
cases, the way the questions were formulated (as the construction of questions may show
researcher‟s bias and determine people to provide some type of answers based on their social
desirability), the limited number of interviews (one interview for each person which entails
that the problem cannot be seen in evolution), the few number of working situations (in
relation to the diversity of situations identified by other scholars, such as Pantea in 2008).
Furthermore, the research was coded only by one researcher and through one method of
coding (direct coding), fact that involves a higher degree of data subjectivity/ a higher
influence of the researcher‟s bias.

70 | P a g e
This research was meant to serve as an exploratory study about the working activities that
children regularly engage into and to identify possible meanings for it. As next steps, the
research sample needs to be extended so as to include children from various background that
realize other types of activities that were not represented in this papers, including attending to
various sport competitions, begging, litering, selling different products, or being members of
youth organization. In this sense, I will identify other children so as to provide saturation for
the mentioned criterias. The data collection for the research and its interpretation will further
be developed based on grounded theory. Grounded theory approach assumes that interviews
need to be transcribed and analysed right after the collection, fact that may provide more
comprehensive data. At the same time, the conducted research suggested some possible
correlations between different variables, respectively parents/friends/families‟ opinions about
children‟s work and family relations, parents/friends/families‟ opinions about work and
children‟s opinions about ttheir work, types of works and children‟s opinions about work.
These possible correlations will be analyzed while employing the SPSS program.

The conducted study sustains that work in children‟s daily lives and the meaning attached to
it represents a topic of great interest. Although it is not visble, work is an important
component of children‟s daily lives both from a synchronic and a diachronic point of view.
From a child-centred oriented approach, it is necessary for the academic field to provide a
framework for analysis in order to allow children to express their views about how work
influences them and how work may be beneficial for them. Children state that work should be
based on their capacity and should distinguish between necessity and obligation, but these
concepts are rather vague. In a country with inconsistent data about children engaged into
economic activities which are based on a traditional mentality that “helping” is not work,
children‟s voice about their work needs to be heard. Still, a main focus has to be placed on
the main factors that influence children including family relations, the way other people
approach work, personal expectations, the experiences that they had, the way their families
perceive their work.

71 | P a g e
Bibliography

 Abebe, T., & Bessell, S. (2011). Dominant Discourses, Debates and Silences on Child Labour in
Africa and Asia. Third World Quarterly, 32(4), pp 765-786.

 Bourdillon, M. (2011). A Challenge for Globalised Thinking: How Does Children's Work Relate to
Their Development? South African Review of Sociology, 42(1), pp 97-115.

 Bourdillon, M.; Levison, D.; Myers, W. & White, B. (2010). Rights and Wrongs of Children’s Work.
New Brunswick, NJ & London: Rutgers University Press. (Chapter 2: Work That Children Do, pp 22-
39; and chapter 10: Policies and Interventions: What Should They Achieve, And How?, pp. 203-217).

 Jensen, L. (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Human Development and Culture: An interdisciplinary
perspective. Oxford University Press. (Part 4 Adolescence, Chapter 28, Child Labor: Homes, Streets,
Armies, Factories, and Stores).

 Ennew, J.; Myers, W. & Plateau, D. (2005). Defining Child Labor as if Human Rights Really Matter.
In: Burns H. Weston (ed). Child Labor and Human Rights. London & Boulder: Lynne Rienner
Publishers, 2005, pp. 27-54.

 Hanson, K., & Nieuwenhuys, O. (2012). Reconceptualizing Children's Rights in International

Development. Cambridge University Press.

 Hindman, H. (2009). The World of Child Labor: An Historical and Regional Survey. ME Sharpe Inc.
https://books.google.ro/books?id=OjPfBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT80&dq=Ben+White-
+Social+Science+Views+on+working+children&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEvcqu9OTUAhULVR
QKHYhlAbcQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=Ben%20White-
%20Social%20Science%20Views%20on%20working%20children&f=false ; last accessed on
2.05.2017.

 Manfred, L. (2009). Do children have a right to work? working children‟s movements in the struggle
for social justice. In Reconceptualizing Children's Rights in International Development: Living Rights,
Social Justice, Translations (pp. 225-249). Cambridge University Press.

 Manfred, L. (n.d) The economic exploitation of children. A theorethical Essay towards a Subject-
Oriented Praxis. Unpublished paper based on chapter 8 of Liebel, Manfred (2004). A will of their Own:
Cross-cultural Perspectives on Working Children. London& New York: Zed Books, pp 194-215.

 Manfred, L., M.; Hanson, K.; Saadi, I. & Vandenhole, W. (2012). Children’s Rights from Below
(Studies in Childhood and Youth). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. (Chapter 4: Schools of thought in
children‟s Rights, pp 63-79)

72 | P a g e
  Nielsen, M., Mushin, I., Tomaselli, K., & Whiten, A. (2014). Where Culture Takes Hold:
"Overimitation" and Its Flexible Deployment in Western, Aboriginal, and Bushmen Children. Child
Development, 85(6), pp 2169-2184.

 ILO, (1999) ILO Convention No. 182, Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Elimination of the
Worst Forms of Child Labour,
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:3
12327 .; last accessed on 01.06.2017

 ILO,(1998)ILO Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights in Work,

http://www.ilo.org/declaration/lang--en/index.htm ; last accesed on 18.05.2017

 United Nations, the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child,

http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx.; last accessed on 15.05.2017

 White, B. (2009). Social Science Views on Working Children. In Hugh Hindman (ed.) The world of
child labor: an historical and regional survey. New York. ME Sharpe Inc.
https://books.google.ro/books?id=OjPfBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT80&dq=Ben+White-
+Social+Science+Views+on+working+children&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEvcqu9OTUAhULVR
QKHYhlAbcQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=Ben%20White-
%20Social%20Science%20Views%20on%20working%20children&f=false ; last accessed on
2.05.2017.

Selective bibliography: Data about Romania

 Pantea, M. (2008) Copiii care muncesc în România, Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană.

 Sîrca, V. (2017) From Legal Regulations and Theories to Social and Economic Realities on the Case of
Child Labor in Romania, http://fiatiustitia.ro/ojs/index.php/fi/article/viewFile/313/295 ; last accessed
on 2.06.2017

 Ștefănescu, E &Panduru F. (2004) INS, ILO, Ancheta asupra activității copiilor-raport național, 2004,
http://www.salvaticopiii.ro/?id2=00060005#Rapoarte anuale.html ; last accessed on 22.05.2017

 Ministerul Muncii, Solidarității Sociale și Familiei (2004). Statistici privind incidența muncii copiilor
în România. http://www.mmuncii.ro/j33/index.php/ro/minister/minister-rapoarte-studii ș last accessed
on 3.06.2017

 2011 Census (Recensământ România 2011), http://www.recensamantromania.ro/rezultate-2/, Last

accessed on 2.06.2017

 http://www.copii.ro/statistica-2016/ , accessed in 24.05.2017

73 | P a g e
  Legea Nr. 272/2004 privind protecția și promovarea drepturilor copilului (Law 272/2004)
http://www.euroavocatura.ro/legislatie/1223/Legea_272_2004,_Actualizata_2016,_privind_protectia_s
i_promovarea_drepturilor_copilului/page/10#nextPage , Access date: 2.06.2017;

 HG 75/2015 privind reglementarea prestării de către copii de activități remunerate în domeniile

cultural, artistic, publicitar și de modeling, http://www.copii.ro/categorii_legislatie/hotarari-de-guvern/
, accessed in 2.06.2017

 HG 617/2004 privind înființarea și organizarea Comitetului Național Director pentru prevenirea și

combaterea exploatării copiilor prin muncă ,
http://www.mmuncii.ro/pub/imagemanager/images/file/Legislatie/HOTARARI-DE-GUVERN/HG617-
2004.pdf , Last accessed on May 21 2017

 Legea Nr. 31/1991 privind stabilirea duratei timpului de muncă sub 8 ore pe zi pentru salariații care
lucrează în condiții deosebite-vătămătoare, grele sau periculoase (Law No. 31/1991)

 http://salvaticopiii.ro/upload/p00060008_Incadrarea%20la%20munca%20a%20copiilor.pdf , last
accessed on 3.06.2017

74 | P a g e